[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2640-2643]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CORNYN:
  S. 2617. A bill to provide for the development of a United States 
strategy for greater human space exploration, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2617

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Mapping a New and Innovative 
     Focus on Our Exploration Strategy for Human Spaceflight Act 
     of 2016'' or the ``MANIFEST for Human Spaceflight Act of 
     2016''.

     SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF POLICY AND FINDINGS.

       (a) Reaffirmation of Policy.--Congress reaffirms that the 
     long-term goal of the human space flight and exploration 
     efforts of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     shall be to expand permanent human presence beyond low-Earth 
     orbit and to do so, where practical, in a manner involving 
     international partners, as stated in section 202(a) of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization 
     Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. 18312(a)).
       (b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) In accordance with section 204 of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 
     2010 (Public Law 111-267; 124 Stat. 2813), the National 
     Academy of Sciences, through its Committee on Human 
     Spaceflight, conducted a review of the goals, core 
     capabilities, and direction of human space flight, and 
     published the findings and recommendations in a 2014 report 
     entitled ``Pathways to Exploration: Rationales and Approaches 
     for a U.S. Program of Human Space Exploration''.
       (2) The Committee on Human Spaceflight included leaders 
     from the aerospace, scientific, security, and policy 
     communities. With input from the public, the Committee on 
     Human Spaceflight concluded that many practical and 
     aspirational rationales together constitute a compelling case 
     for human space exploration. These rationales include 
     economic benefits, national security, national prestige, 
     inspiring students and other citizens, scientific discovery, 
     human survival, and a sense of shared destiny.
       (3) The Committee on Human Spaceflight affirmed that Mars 
     is the appropriate long-term goal for the human space flight 
     program.
       (4) The Committee on Human Spaceflight recommended that the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration define a series 
     of

[[Page 2641]]

     sustainable steps and conduct mission planning and technology 
     development as needed to achieve the long-term goal of 
     placing humans on the surface of Mars.

     SEC. 3. HUMAN EXPLORATION STRATEGY.

       (a) Human Exploration of Mars.--Section 202(b) of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization 
     Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. 18312(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) to achieve human exploration of Mars, including the 
     establishment of a capability to extend human presence to the 
     surface of Mars.''.
       (b) Exploration Strategy.--
       (1) In general.--In accordance with this subsection, the 
     Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration shall submit an interim report and final 
     report setting forth a strategy to achieve the objective in 
     paragraph (5) of section 202(b) of the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010, as 
     amended by subsection (a) of this section, through a series 
     of successive, sustainable, free-standing, but complementary 
     missions making robust utilization of cis-lunar space and 
     employing the Space Launch System, Orion crew capsule, and 
     other capabilities provided under titles III, IV, V, and IX 
     of that Act (42 U.S.C. 18301 et seq.).
       (2) Strategy requirements.--In developing the strategy 
     under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall include--
       (A) the utility of an expanded human presence in cis-lunar 
     space toward enabling missions to various lunar orbits, the 
     lunar surface, asteroids, Mars, the moons of Mars, and other 
     destinations of interest for future human exploration and 
     development;
       (B) the utility of an expanded human presence in cis-lunar 
     space for economic, scientific, and technological advances;
       (C) the opportunities for collaboration with--
       (i) international partners;
       (ii) private industry; and
       (iii) other Federal agencies, including missions relevant 
     to national security or scientific needs;
       (D) the opportunities specifically afforded by the 
     International Space Station (ISS) to support high priority 
     scientific research and technological developments useful in 
     expanding and sustaining a human presence in cis-lunar space 
     and beyond;
       (E) a range of exploration mission architectures and 
     approaches for the missions identified under paragraph (1), 
     including capabilities for the Orion crew capsule and the 
     Space Launch System;
       (F) a comparison of architectures and approaches based on--
       (i) assessed value of factors including cost effectiveness, 
     schedule resiliency, safety, sustainability, and 
     opportunities for international collaboration;
       (ii) the extent to which certain architectures and 
     approaches may enable new markets and opportunities for 
     United States private industry, provide compelling 
     opportunities for scientific discovery and technological 
     excellence, sustain United States competitiveness and 
     leadership, and address critical national security 
     considerations and requirements; and
       (iii) the flexibility of such architectures and approaches 
     to adjust to evolving technologies, partners, priorities, and 
     budget projections and constraints;
       (G) measures for setting standards for ensuring crew health 
     and safety, including limits regarding radiation exposure and 
     countermeasures necessary to meet those limits, means and 
     methods for addressing urgent medical conditions or injuries, 
     and other such safety, health, and medical issues that can be 
     anticipated in the conduct of the missions identified under 
     paragraph (1);
       (H) a description of crew training needs and capabilities 
     (including space suits and life support systems) necessary to 
     support the conduct of missions identified under paragraph 
     (1);
       (I) a detailed plan for prioritizing and phasing near-term 
     intermediate destinations and missions identified under 
     paragraph (1);
       (J) an assessment of the recommendations of the report 
     prepared in compliance with section 204 of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 
     2010 (Public Law 111-267; 124 Stat. 2813), including a 
     detailed explanation of how the Administrator has ensured 
     such recommendations have been, to the extent practicable, 
     incorporated into the strategy under paragraph (1); and
       (K) technical information as needed to identify interest 
     from potential stakeholder or partner communities.
       (3) Independent review.--
       (A) In general.--The Administrator shall enter into an 
     arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to review 
     and comment on each interim report pursuant to paragraph (1). 
     Under the arrangement, the National Academy of Sciences shall 
     review each interim report on the strategy described in 
     paragraph (1) and identify the following:
       (i) Matters in such interim report agreed upon by the 
     National Academy of Sciences.
       (ii) Matters in such interim report raising concerns for 
     the National Academy of Sciences.
       (iii) Such further recommendations with respect to matters 
     covered by such interim report as the National Academy of 
     Sciences considers appropriate.
       (B) Timing of review and comment.--The Administrator shall 
     ensure that the review and comment on an interim report 
     provided for pursuant to subparagraph (A) is conducted in a 
     timely manner to comply with the requirements of this 
     subsection and, to the maximum extent practicable, to 
     facilitate the incorporation of the comments of the National 
     Academy of Sciences pursuant to subparagraph (A) into the 
     applicable final report required by this subsection.
       (4) Deadlines.--
       (A) Interim reports.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, and not less than every five 
     years thereafter, the Administrator shall submit to the 
     National Academy of Sciences an interim report on the 
     strategy required by paragraph (1) in order to facilitate the 
     independent review and comment on the strategy as provided 
     for by paragraph (3).
       (B) Final reports.--Not later than one year after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, and not less than every five 
     years thereafter, the Administrator shall submit to Congress 
     a final report on the strategy required by paragraph (1), 
     which shall include and incorporate the response of the 
     National Academy of Sciences to the most recent interim 
     report pursuant to paragraph (3).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. HEITKAMP:
  S. 2619. A bill to require the Secretary of Commerce to carry out a 
pilot program on the award of financial assistance to local governments 
to support the development of startup businesses, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I am introducing the Startup 
Entrepreneur Empowerment Delivery, SEED, Act today to address the 
challenges faced by startup businesses in North Dakota, as well as 
other rural States and small cities, by helping them get the early 
stage funding they need to grow their business.
  Access to capital is one of the single largest barriers between 
startup businesses and success. This bill addresses the unique needs of 
startup companies in our country's more rural States by creating a 
pilot program through the U.S. Department of Commerce aimed at 
providing small amounts of capital to qualifying startups.
  Innovation does not just happen in Silicon Valley or at our country's 
biggest research institutions. Innovative ideas are blooming in our 
heartland and startups are forming on our main streets making the 
entrepreneurial ecosystem of our smaller cities stronger than ever 
before. But too often, we hear the same challenges from startups and 
small businesses that they are trying to fit a square peg into a round 
hole, meaning they run into the barrier of not being able to qualify 
for Federal support or Federal programs because they are asking for too 
little funding. We can't let these innovators slip through the cracks.
  The Startup Entrepreneur Empowerment Delivery, SEED, Act would grant 
financial assistance to ten small sized cities across the country which 
then would make awards directly to startups to use for marketing, 
infrastructure, recruitment and hiring resources. This bill directly 
addresses the concerns that I continue to hear from startups in North 
Dakota and will help drive them to success and reinvest and diversify 
the local economies of our Nation's more rural areas.
  With my SEED Act, we can invest in small cities, in rural States, 
like North Dakota, helping drive startups to success. Just like anyone 
from a small or rural town, we know how to make a little go a long way, 
and this bill will help make that possible. The SEED Act will allow the 
Federal Government to continue its priority of investing in innovation 
and will ensure those investments are felt in America's heartland.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MERKLEY (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Tester, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, and Mr. Sanders):
  S. 2621. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
with respect to genetically engineered food transparency and 
uniformity; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the genius of America was a government

[[Page 2642]]

designed, as President Lincoln so eloquent summarized, ``Of the people, 
by the people, for the people.''
  I will be rising periodically to address issues that affect Americans 
across our country and that this Chamber should be addressing. This 
week I am using my speech to highlight the labeling of genetically 
modified foods. This is truly a ``We the people'' versus ``We the 
Titans'' battle because citizens routinely poll in very high numbers 
about their desire to know what is in their food, and they like the 
idea of being alerted when their food contains genetically modified 
organisms or GMOs, but that is not necessarily the consequence, as when 
we go through the legislative process, often the ``We the people's'' 
commonsense vision is lost in favor of pressures applied by powerful 
interest groups. We are in the middle of a debate like that right now. 
So that is why I thought it appropriate to rise at this moment to 
address this.
  This is a debate about whether you believe that in a democracy, 
citizens have a right to know or whether that right to know is going to 
be taken away from them. I guess it goes to whether you feel that 
citizens have the minds they are put on this Earth with to make 
decisions of their own versus being told what decisions to make by a 
Federal Government.
  This debate over genetically modified organisms is a debate that gets 
complicated because there are tremendous differences in the types of 
genetic changes in plants. Let me give you some examples. You might 
have a crop where the crop has been modified genetically in the 
laboratory to produce natural toxins that defend plants against root-
dwelling insect pests. Perhaps as a result of that, the farmers can 
reduce the amount of synthetic pesticides they apply to crop lands. 
That might be a very positive thing. It might save a lot of money, and 
it also might save a lot of runoff of pesticides. That is one example.
  Other crops have been modified to fortify foods with vitamins and 
nutrients. For example, golden rice, developed by the International 
Rice Institute, provides greater amounts of vitamin A to reduce the 
deficiency of this essential vitamin in our diets. There are other 
positive impacts. For example, you have transgenic carrots--carrots 
that have been modified genetically to produce drugs inside the carrot 
to treat the genetic disorder known as Goucher's disease. Other genetic 
modifications have been used to attempt to increase crop yields through 
more efficient photosynthesis.
  So that is a whole variety of different ways of trying to make plants 
contribute better to our nutrition and certainly in terms of the 
dynamics to the farming environment, but there are also changes that 
are made that raise concerns among some of our citizens. For example, 
most of the genetically modified crops grown in the United States have 
been altered to confer resistance to a chemical herbicide known as 
glyphosate. I was looking at a chart. I do not have it to display, but 
I will describe it. After the introduction of these GMO crops in the 
early 1990s, the amount of acreage that has been planted with 
glyphosate-resistant crops has gone to nearly 100 percent. With 
soybeans, it went to 100 percent by about 2005--just about every 
soybean plant in America. Glyphosate-resistant cotton, virtually all 
cotton, falls into that category, and a great deal of the corn, the 
vast majority of the corn planted in our country falls into that 
category.
  So now we have millions of acres being sprayed with glyphosate. At 
first glance, one might say: Well, that is a great thing because it is 
an easy way to reduce weeds--but often Mother Nature is complicated. 
For example, when you have all of that glyphosate being sprayed on acre 
after acre, millions of acres, the weeds start to evolve a resistance 
to it. Then that resistance means you have to put more herbicides on 
than before. So that is a concern or, for example, as you put more 
glyphosate on, you have more glyphosate runoff, and that runoff becomes 
a concern because you have herbicides running off into our waterways, 
and that can have an impact on sensitive aquatic species, including 
fish, mussels, amphibians, microorganisms. So it merits study, but it 
is certainly something to be concerned about.
  You can also have the impact of going to a separate item in which you 
have, as I mentioned as a positive, the fact that plants have been 
genetically modified to resist certain bugs that attack the roots. 
Western corn rootworm is an example of that, but now it appears to be 
evolving to eat the corn that was bioengineered to kill it because, 
over time, with millions and millions of acres, there is some genetic 
change, and some worm that would have been killed because it has a 
genetic diversity and genetic changes is now resistant. It produces 
offspring, and suddenly you have a bug that is sometimes referred to as 
superbugs that are evolving to be resistant to pesticides. What is the 
impact of that?
  Let me give you another example. We had a huge drop in the population 
of Monarch butterflies, magnificent creatures. I think humans just see 
a Monarch and they fall in love, just seeing one beautiful butterfly. 
Of course, these butterflies manage to travel thousands of miles in the 
course of their lives, which is just stunning that such a fragile, 
beautiful, little creature could travel so far to go way south in order 
to reproduce and come way back north. When we apply huge amounts of 
glyphosate herbicides, one of the side effects is that it kills a lot 
of the plants; that is, the milkweed, that the Monarch eats. So you 
have an attack on the Monarch. That is not the only impact on the 
Monarch, but it is a contributing factor, and the result is that it has 
contributed to a crash in this population.
  To summarize, you have many potential positive impacts of genetic 
engineering, and you have many potential concerns from genetically 
engineered crops.So there are considerations that need to be balanced. 
Some individuals hear that and are not concerned at all. They say: It 
is fine. I want to buy products that are genetically engineered or I 
would like to buy these and not those. Others say: I am really 
concerned about a specific feature of genetically modified crops, and I 
don't want to use my dollars to buy that crop and contribute to the 
problem I am concerned about. This is an adult conversation. It is a 
complex conversation. There are benefits and there are disadvantages 
and there are more studies to be done to discover just how much the 
concern should be. Some individuals are concerned that with this huge 
amount of biphosphate being sprayed--and biphosphate is now a known 
carcinogen--is there any residue that stays on the crops that people 
harvest and eat. So they are concerned about that.
  That is why labeling is leveling the field. It allows those who are 
concerned to know what is going on. It allows those who are not 
concerned to not pay attention. My daughter happens to like to look at 
ingredient lists and tries not to consume high-fructose corn syrup. It 
is helpful to her to know what is in it, and she can exercise her 
consumer preference. Other folks don't want to have excessive salt or 
maybe they are allergic to peanuts, so peanuts are on the ingredients 
list, and it is helpful to them to be able to make that decision.
  Honoring our citizens' right to know seems to be disappearing on 
Capitol Hill because we have powerful special interests that don't want 
to let citizens make these judgments, make these evaluations, between 
the advantages and the disadvantages. Last summer, a few hundred yards 
from here in the House of Representatives, the majority voted for a law 
that blocks States from passing laws to provide this type of 
information on a label.
  Just yesterday in the Senate, the Senate Agricultural Committee voted 
out a law to block the rights of citizens to know whether GMOs are in 
their food. That is an outrageous--outrageous--bill. It would halt any 
progress in ensuring that consumers can simply and easily access 
information about GMO ingredients through labeling.
  This bill that was passed out of committee also included a proposal 
that the Secretary of Agriculture do an education campaign touting the 
economic, nutritional, humanitarian, and scientific benefits of GMOs, 
but the bill

[[Page 2643]]

didn't say--and educate consumers about the substantial concerns the 
scientific community has, about the impact on the evolution of weeds, 
about the impact on the evolution of bugs, about potential residues 
that are on the crops, about the runoff that is in our waterways 
affecting how healthy our waterways are and the organisms that live in 
our streams and in our rivers.
  So this is a very unbalanced presentation to the American public. It 
is the type of thing that government shouldn't be involved in--
basically, running a promotional campaign on taxpayers' dollars to not 
create a balanced understanding of an issue but instead an unbalanced 
understanding of an issue.
  The truth is, all Americans have the right to know what is in their 
food. They are buying food to feed their children. They have the right 
to know the ingredients so they can make responsible decisions. 
Providing information regarding genetically modified ingredients is a 
commonsense way to empower consumers to make their own personal 
decisions on issues they care about on the food they purchase. It is a 
pretty emotional issue when you start talking about the food you are 
putting in your own mouth or the food you are feeding your children.
  Campbell's Soup has begun taking steps to voluntarily disclose on all 
of their soups whether the products contain genetically modified 
ingredients. Why are they doing this? They say they have a relationship 
of integrity with their customers. They want their customers to know 
full information about their products and let the customer decide what 
the customer wants, and they will provide information about the type of 
genetic modifications and what they mean so the customer will have 
enough information to make a decision. There are advantages and 
disadvantages to GMO ingredients.
  Our Federal Government already requires the labeling of ingredients 
and basic nutritional information in order to protect the public and 
guard against false product marketing. These food labels tell consumers 
many things. They are supposed to tell how many calories. They tell how 
much there is of a variety of vitamins. They list the ingredients and 
do so in order of how prominent they are in the product. Our labeling 
laws even say that when fish are sold in large supermarkets, they have 
to state whether a fish is farm raised or wild caught. Why do we 
require supermarkets to label the fish as farm raised or wild caught? 
Because our consumers care about that. There are implications of 
whether a product was grown in an artificial lake or whether it was 
caught in the wild. Consumers want to know and use their own minds to 
make these decisions. That is something about being in a free society--
you get to make your own decisions based on disclosure. We make the 
information available.
  This type of labeling about genetic modifications or genetically 
modified organisms in the ingredients is routine around the world. 
Sixty-five other countries, including twenty-eight members of the 
European Union, plus Japan, plus Australia, plus China, plus Brazil, 
already require mandatory GM labeling. Has it come to the point that we 
in America are denying information that is routinely required in China 
for consumers? Is that the point we are coming to on this bill, this 
DARK Act, Denying Americans the Right to Know Act? This is not the 
direction we should be going.
  Instead, we believe in our American citizens, we believe in 
education, we believe in individual decisionmaking, and consumer 
information on the label honors that. Blocking States from being able 
to provide information that those State legislators or those State 
citizens, by initiative, say they want, that is an overstepping of 
Federal authority to crush States' rights on an issue important to 
citizens.
  That is why today I am introducing a compromise bill, a bill trying 
to bring this conversation to a commonsense compromise. It is called 
the Biotechnology Food Labeling and Uniformity Act. I am introducing 
this bill today with Senator Tester and Senator Leahy. It would give 
the FDA the authority to develop a uniform Federal standard for on-
package disclosure of genetically modified ingredients.
  I have met with industry groups. I have met with the pro-label 
groups. I tried to find that area of compromise between the two. What I 
found is a great deal of flexibility on the labeling groups. Those 
groups said there doesn't have to be information on the front of the 
package. It is OK if it is on the ingredients list on the back of the 
can or the back of the package. It doesn't have to be in supersized 
print. It is OK if it is in the same small print that the ingredients 
are printed in. In fact, they are open to many different versions of 
how a company discloses this information, as long as a person can go to 
the store, pick up the package, turn it over, and quickly find out if 
there is a GMO impact.
  These are some of the ideas--and there are a variety--that are 
acceptable to the labeling side of the world. One is on the ingredients 
area. After the ingredient, it could either say it is genetically 
modified or put in a code like GM--it doesn't take up much space, it is 
on the list of ingredients--or if there are several ingredients and you 
would rather use an asterisk, you would rather put an asterisk and put 
what the asterisk means: ``This ingredient has been genetically 
modified,'' or ``May contain genetically modified ingredients.'' So a 
simple phrase at the bottom or a symbol. Brazil uses a symbol. They use 
a T. This is an example of using a symbol T for transgenic--not all of 
them at once, just each of them would be fine. It will take effort for 
consumers to look and see it. It is not upfront. They have to pick up 
the product. They have to look. It can be typed in small print, but it 
gives a person who cares the ability to get to the bottom of the 
question. Then, if they want, they can look up at the Web site the 
product, through a quick response code, and get more details. That 
range of flexibility is where the compromise can be honoring a 
citizen's right to know, while not taking up a lot of space on a 
package or not doing anything on the front of the package that says 
that this product is healthy or unhealthy or otherwise. It means the 
share of Americans who want this information--just as there is a share 
of Americans who want to know if there is high-fructose corn syrup, 
there is a share of Americans who want to know if fish is farmed or 
wild fish--can in fact find this out.
  This also addresses the big issue manufacturers have been raising. 
They don't want a patchwork across the country of 50 different States 
having different labeling laws. Our supply inventory doesn't work that 
way. We don't have a warehouse that only serves one State. Quite 
frankly, it gets very complicated and even more so on the East Coast, 
where the States are all packed together, than it does back home in 
Oregon. That is a legitimate concern. So there are big concerns. About 
50 different versions of the law or maybe counties even having 
different laws is addressed.
  I am going to simply conclude with this understanding: Citizens have 
a right to know in a free society what is in their food. Let's honor 
that. Should the DARK Act--the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act 
that passed out of the Agriculture Committee--come to this floor, many 
of us will stand up to fight it in every possible way. It shortchanges 
American citizens, denies them critical information, and takes the 
right of a fundamental privilege in our society. It strips our States. 
It is a Federal overreach, and it is an assault on consumer information 
and consumer rights. It is just wrong, and we will oppose it 
vigorously.

                          ____________________