[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3182-3194]
[From the U.S. 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 senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       House message to accompany S. 764, a bill to reauthorize 
     and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for 
     other purposes.

  Pending:

       McConnell motion to concur in the House amendment to the 
     bill with McConnell (for Roberts) amendment No. 3450 (to the 
     House amendment to the bill), in the nature of a substitute.
       McConnell motion to refer the bill to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I suspect a quorum call has been 
initiated. If so, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in a quorum call.
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today is National Agriculture Day, and I 
wish to thank the farmers and ranchers of America. The Senate is 
considering legislation on an issue that is critically important to our 
Nation's food supply. It affects everyone from our producers in the 
fields to our consumers in the aisles of grocery stores. Without Senate 
action, this country will be hit with a wrecking ball--an apt 
description--that will disrupt the entire food chain. We need to act 
now to pass my amendment to S. 764. This is a compromised approach that 
provides a permanent solution to the patchwork of biotechnology 
labeling laws that will soon be wreaking havoc on the flow of 
interstate commerce, agriculture, and food products in our Nation's 
marketplace, and that is exactly what this is about. Let me repeat 
that. This is 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 and again that the use of agriculture biotechnology is 
100 percent safe.
  In fact, last year the Agriculture Committee heard from three Federal 
agencies tasked with regulating agriculture biotechnology: the 
Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 
the Environmental Protection Agency--yes, the EPA--and the Food and 
Drug Administration, the FDA. Their work is based on sound science and 
is the gold standard for policymaking, including this policy we are 
debating today--one of the most important food and agriculture 
decisions in recent decades.
  At our hearing, the Federal Government expert witnesses highlighted 
the steps their agencies have already taken to ensure that agriculture 
biotechnology is safe--safe to other plants, safe to the environment, 
and safe to our food supply. It was clear our regulatory system ensures 
biotechnology crops are among the most tested in the history of 
agriculture in any country. At the conclusion of the hearing, virtually 
all Senate Agriculture Committee members were in agreement. What 
happened? When did sound science go out the window? Since that hearing, 
the U.S. Government reinforced their decisions on the safety of these 
products.
  In November, the FDA took several steps based on sound science 
regarding food produced from biotech plants, including issuing final 
guidance for manufacturers that wish to voluntarily label their 
products as containing ingredients from biotech or exclusively 
nonbiotech plants.
  More important, the Food and Drug Administration denied a petition 
that would have required the mandatory labeling of biotech foods. The 
FDA stated that the petitioner failed to provide the evidence needed 
for the agency to put such a requirement in place because there is no 
health safety or nutritional difference between biotech crops and their 
nonbiotech varieties, regardless of some of the rhetoric we have heard 
on the floor of the Senate.
  Thus, it is clear that what we are facing today is not a safety or 
health issue, despite claims by my colleagues on the Senate floor; it 
is a market issue. This is about a conversation about a few States 
dictating to every other State the way food moves from farmers to 
consumers in the value chain. We have a responsibility to ensure that 
the national market can work for everyone, including farmers, 
manufacturers, retailers, and, yes, consumers.
  This patchwork approach of mandates adds costs to national food 
prices. In fact, requiring changes in the production or labeling of 
most of the Nation's food supply for a single State would impact 
citizens in our home States. A recent study estimates that the cost to 
consumers could total as much as--get this--$82 billion annually, which 
comes to approximately $1,050 per hard-working American family. This 
Vermont law, which is supposed to go into effect in July, will cost 
each hard-working family $1,050. Let me repeat that. If we fail to act, 
the cost to consumers could total as much as $82 billion annually and 
will cost each hard-working American family just over $1,000. Now is 
not the time for Congress to make food more expensive for anybody--not 
the consumer or 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 troubled and very 
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. Agriculture 
biotechnology has become a valuable tool in ensuring the success of the 
American farmer and meeting the challenge of increasing their yields in 
a more efficient, safe, and responsible manner. Any threat to the 
technology hurts the entire value chain--from the farmer to the 
consumer and all those who are involved.
  I also hear--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 who also produce their food. I can 
assure you the most effective tool consumers have to influence our food 
system or to know more about food is by voting with their pocketbooks 
in the grocery stores and supermarkets. This legislation puts forward 
policies that will help all consumers not only find information but 
also demand consistent information from food manufacturers. However, it 
is important, as with any Federal legislation on this topic, for 
Congress to consider scientific fact and unintended consequences.
  The committee-passed bill created a voluntary national standard for 
biotechnology labeling claims of food. I have heard concerns that a 
voluntary-only standard would not provide consumers with enough 
information, even though there is no health, safety, or nutritional 
concern with this biotechnology. So we worked out a compromise to 
address these concerns by

[[Page 3183]]

providing an incentive for the marketplace to provide more information.
  This legislation will allow the markets to work. However, if they do 
not live up to their commitments and information is not made available 
to consumers, then this legislation holds the market accountable. Under 
this proposal, a mandatory labeling program would go into effect only 
if a voluntary program does not provide significant information after 
several years. The marketplace would then have adequate time to adjust 
and utilize a variety of options--a menu of options--to disclose 
information about ingredients, along with a wealth of other information 
about the food on the shelves.
  Simply put, the legislation before us provides an immediate 
comprehensive solution to the unworkable State-by-State patchwork of 
labeling laws. Preemption doesn't extend to State consumer protection 
laws or anything beyond the wrecking ball that we see related to 
biotechnology labeling mandates, and we do ensure that the solution to 
the State patchwork, the one thing we all agree upon, is effective. It 
sets national uniformity that allows for the free flow of interstate 
commerce, a power granted to Congress in the U.S. Constitution. 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. This ensures uniformity in claims made by 
manufacturers and will enhance clarity for our consumers.
  Increasingly, many Americans have taken an interest in where their 
food comes from and how it is made. Let's keep in mind this is a good 
thing. We want consumers informed about food and farming practices, but 
at the same time we must also not demonize food with unnecessary 
labels.
  This debate is about more than catchy slogans and made-up names for 
bills. It is about the role of the Federal Government to ensure the 
free flow of commerce, to make decisions based upon sound science, all 
the while providing opportunity for the market to meet the demands of 
consumers.
  This is not the first time this body has addressed this issue. In 
2012 and 2013, Members of the Senate soundly rejected the idea of 
mandatory labeling for biotechnology. That is right. Both times more 
than 70 Members voted to reject mandatory labeling. This body then 
stood up for sound science and common sense, and I trust my colleagues 
will continue to stand up and defend sound science again.
  Time is of the essence for not only agriculture in the food value 
chain but also consumers who work together, face the wrecking ball of 
this patchwork of State-by-State mandates. This legislation has the 
support of more than 650 organizations. We never had 650 organizations 
contact the Agriculture Committee about any other bill, any other piece 
of legislation--more than 650. My staff now tells me that number is 
over 700, large and small, representing the entire food chain, and that 
number continues to grow every day. That is quite a coalition. They are 
here in Washington trying to say: Look, this is not going to work with 
regard to State-by-State regulation.
  As I have said, never before in the Agriculture Committee have we 
seen such a coalition of constituents all united behind such effort. 
Their message is clear: It is time for us to act. It is time for us to 
provide certainty in the marketplace.
  I appreciate the bipartisan support of those on the committee who 
joined me to vote out our committee bill. The vote was 14 to 6. We made 
significant changes to address the concerns of others. Now we must 
carry this across the finish line. I urge my colleagues to support this 
compromising approach and protect the safest, most abundant, and 
affordable food supply in the world.
  I yield the floor.
  Upon close inspection, 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.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a very important 
issue for the American people--what they feed their families. Here is a 
photo of a dad--a pretty typical photo of a dad taking his two kids 
shopping. You can see he has one toddler there and he has one infant in 
the cart. How well I remember doing this with my own kids and then 
watching my kids with their kids. It is kind of a tradition.
  So we have a couple of questions we have to ask ourselves when we 
look at a photo like this. If this dad wants to know what ingredients 
are in the food that he gives his kids, he should have a right to know 
that. That is my deep belief. He has a right to know that, just as they 
do in so many countries all over the world.
  The bill that is going to come before us, called the Safe and 
Accurate Food Labeling Act, is anything but that. I would call it the 
``no label'' act. It is a ``no label.'' There is no label required. It 
is a totally voluntary system. It is a ``no label'' label. Even if in 3 
years Senator Roberts' mandatory labeling kicked in, you still would 
not have a true label. I think it is an embarrassment. I think it is an 
insult to consumers, and it is a sham. The goal of the bill--and I hope 
we vote it down--is to hide the information from consumers. It is going 
to make it harder, not easier, for consumers to know if they are 
feeding their families genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.
  So here again is our typical dad, and he has his kids in the cart. 
They are shopping, they have had their outing, and he picks up a 
product. He wants to see the ingredients, including whether it has been 
genetically modified. Guess what. There is no GMO label.
  So what are his options? Well, in 3 years, maybe he will have an 
option. But before then, the voluntary program is going to make it 
literally impossible for him to know what is in his food. It is either 
going to be a QR code--so he will have to have a smartphone, and even 
when he puts the smartphone up against the code, they don't really have 
to tell you easily whether it is GMO, and it is going to have a whole 
bunch of other information--or he is going to have to call a 1-800 
number.
  Can you believe this? The man is going through the grocery store. He 
has 50 products in his cart. He is saying: Wait a minute, kids--just a 
minute. Here, have some chips. Then he calls 1-800 and he tries to find 
out, and he gets probably some person answering him in India, which is 
usually what you get, and you go around the mulberry bush. How 
embarrassing is this?
  Now, if he is lucky, he gets some products from companies that really 
are being fair about this, such as Campbell Soup Company. They are 
doing a really smart, voluntary label. It says: ``Partially produced 
with genetic engineering. For information visit . . .'' and they have a 
site. Campbell's, if he is lucky, has enough products in here that have 
a label. He may find out more information, but it is totally voluntary. 
It is totally voluntary. I want to say thank you to Campbell's for 
being upfront and putting the information right on the label.
  As a mom and as a grandma, I want to know what is in my food. Because 
of work we have done before, you do have to list how much sugar is in 
the product, which is so critical as we combat diabetes and other 
things. Sometimes you read that sugar content, and you think: Oh my 
God, I am going to get something else. And you can see how many carbs, 
how much fat. Why can't you find out if the product is genetically 
modified? Seems to me, this is fair.
  So while I call the Roberts proposal the ``no-label label,'' because 
it makes believe you are going to have a label, but there is no label--
the groups, the consumer groups call it the DARK Act, because the label 
is voluntary. There is not going to be a label, at least for 3 years 
after that, if not longer. They will figure out another way to put it 
off indefinitely. Even if, after 3 years USDA decides they have to make 
something mandatory, information will be

[[Page 3184]]

hidden behind Web sites or phone numbers or these QR codes that are so 
problematic.
  So this busy dad that we have here, he is going to have to stop 
shopping for every item on his list. He would have to pull out his 
phone to make a call or go to a Web site or scan a code. You don't have 
to live too long to know this is not going to happen. This dad is not 
going to do that because he has two kids. By now they are screaming: 
Get me out of here; I am hungry, and where is mommy? So as to all of 
this notion that this dad is now going to deal with all of this--I 
don't care how much of a super dad you are, you are not going to make 
50 phone calls to 1-800 numbers. You are not going to go look at 50 QR 
codes and find out whether the product has GMO. You are just not going 
to do it. It is not going to happen. The kids are going to be melting 
down. Even if he doesn't have kids with him, he has other things to do, 
by the way, like live his life outside the supermarket. He is going to 
want to get back home or get back to work. It makes no sense at all.
  By the way, this dad--and I ask Senator Reid to take a look at this 
picture, if it doesn't remind him of one of his kids taking his 
grandkids shopping--is going to be expected--if he has 50 products and 
he wants to find out--either to have a smartphone and to put it up 
against the code and then find a whole bunch of information--
  Mr. REID. Or call the 1-800 number.
  Mrs. BOXER. Or he could call the 1-800 number, and we know what 
happens then. He will be transferred around the world.
  So Americans should not have to run through hoops. Life is difficult 
enough already not to have to do that. This thing is a sham. It is an 
insult. It is a joke.
  Why are they doing it on the other side of the aisle? Because they 
are beholden to the special interests that don't want to label GMOs, 
that are afraid if people know the food is genetically modified, they 
won't buy it, even though there is no proof of that at all.
  Mr. President, 64 countries require labels. Some 64 countries today 
require simple labels, and many of our products are sold in those 64 
countries. Let me tell you some of these countries.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a list of the 64 countries that require GMO labeling.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                       Countries with GMO Labels

       1. Australia, 2. Austria, 3. Belarus, 4. Belgium, 5. 
     Bolivia, 6. Bosnia and Herzegovina, 7. Brazil, 8. Bulgaria, 
     9. Cameroon, 10. China, 11. Croatia, 12. Cyprus, 13. Czech 
     Republic, 14. Denmark, 15. Ecuador, 16. El Salvador, 17. 
     Estonia, 18. Ethiopia, 19. Finland, 20. France;
       21. Germany, 22. Greece, 23. Hungary, 24. Iceland, 25. 
     India, 26. Indonesia, 27. Ireland, 28. Italy, 29. Japan, 30. 
     Jordan, 31. Kazakhstan, 32. Kenya, 33. Latvia, 34. Lithuania, 
     35. Luxembourg, 36. Malaysia, 37. Mali, 38. Malta, 39. 
     Mauritius, 40. Netherlands;
       41. New Zealand, 42. Norway, 43. Peru, 44. Poland, 45. 
     Portugal, 46. Romania, 47. Russia, 48. Saudi Arabia, 49. 
     Senegal, 50. Slovakia, 51. Slovenia, 52. South Africa, 53. 
     South Korea, 54. Spain, 55. Sri Lanka, 56. Sweden, 57. 
     Switzerland, 58. Taiwan, 59. Thailand, 60. Tunisia, 61. 
     Turkey, 62. Ukraine, 63. United Kingdom, and 64. Vietnam.

  Mrs. BOXER. I am going to name some of these countries that require 
the labels. So in other words, our companies have to put the label on 
if they want to sell there, letting people know if their food is 
genetically modified: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, 
Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, 
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, 
Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia, Mali, Malta, Netherlands, New 
Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, 
Senegal, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, 
Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and 
Vietnam. I left some out, but they will be in the Record if anyone 
wants to see them.
  Why is it that consumers in Russia have more information than our 
consumers do--the greatest country in the world? This makes no sense at 
all. Why is it that our companies are up in arms, since they have to 
put the label on in these other countries? They could put the label on 
here.
  Now, if we care at all about what the public thinks, we should vote 
no on the Roberts bill. Some 90 percent of Americans want to know if 
the food they buy has been genetically engineered--90 percent. That is 
a majority of Republicans. That is a majority of Democrats. That is a 
majority of Independents. I think the other 10 percent are working for 
the big food companies, which don't seem to want to share this. 
Millions of Americans have filed comments with the FDA urging the 
agency to label genetically engineered food so they can have this 
information at their fingertips.
  The bill also preempts any State in the Union from doing a label. 
Now, I don't like the notion of every State doing a label. That is why 
I support my bill--which has about 14 sponsors and simply says to the 
FDA to write a label and make this the law--or the Merkley bill, which 
comes up with four labels. Senator Merkley will talk about this. We say 
that would, in fact, be enough so that States wouldn't be able to act.
  Meanwhile, this says no State action, and we are going to keep the 
status quo for at least 3 years--no labeling. Even after those 3 years, 
there may be no labeling at all. It is going to be barcodes, which are 
confusing, and 1-800 numbers, which probably take you to India to try 
and figure your way through it all.
  Now, I have long believed in the power to give consumers information. 
I think you are all familiar with the dolphin-safe tuna labeling law. I 
am proud to say that I wrote that law. That law has been in effect 
since the 1990s, and people like it. But guess what. They see a smiling 
dolphin on the tuna can, and they know that tuna was caught in a way 
that does not harm the dolphins. We found out so many years ago that 
the tuna schools swim under the dolphins, and the tuna companies were 
purse seining on dolphins. They were putting nets over the dolphins, 
pulling them away and then catching the tuna, and the dolphins would 
die by the tens of thousands. So the schoolkids in those years said--at 
that time I was a House Member: Congresswoman Boxer, we don't want to 
have tuna that resulted in the death of all these dolphins. So we 
created the label, and the tuna companies were very helpful, just like 
Campbell Soup Company has been very helpful in labeling their products. 
When you have the companies come forward, it is very helpful. So we 
passed the bill. Everybody said: Oh, this is going to be terrible; no 
one will buy tuna. Actually, people started buying the tuna because 
they changed the way they fish for the tuna. The dolphins weren't 
harmed. We have saved literally hundreds of thousands of dolphins over 
the period of time that label has been in effect.
  Now, as to this label, all we are saying is to let us know. Let us 
know. What we do know is that many of these genetically engineered 
products, as they are growing in the ground, require huge amounts of 
pesticides. Senator Heinrich talked about that. That is one issue which 
has grown in importance to parents because they don't want to give 
their kids food that is covered in pesticides if they have an option.
  So the power we give the consumers is critical--the power to simply 
know the truth. And, to me, knowledge is power. To me, it is respect. 
You tell people the truth; you don't give them a sham bill and say: 
Well, we won't require anything for 3 years, but then we may have a 
barcode, and then we may have a 1-800 number. No. It is pretty simple: 
Require a label. Require a label. A label is simple. A label works.
  I see Senator Merkley on the floor, and I am finishing up. We have 
various ways we can do the label. One way is to give it to the FDA and 
tell them to come up with it, and another way is the way Senator 
Merkley has proceeded in a way to attract more support. He has given 
four options, all of which are very good and all of which would 
immediately give consumers the information they need.
  In 2000, when I introduced the first Senate bill concerning the 
labeling of

[[Page 3185]]

GE foods, my legislation had one supporter, and it was me. I had no 
other supporters back then. It was so long ago. It was in 2000. Now 14 
Senators are cosponsoring the bill. I am so proud to cosponsor Senator 
Merkley's bill, the Biotechnology Food Labeling and Uniformity Act, 
which, again, will put forward four options for companies.
  There are reasons people want this information, and not one of us 
here should decry what our people want, even if they want to know if 
the foods contain GMOs because of the prevalence of herbicide-resistant 
crops. We know from the USGS that growers sprayed 280 million pounds of 
Roundup in 2012--a pound of herbicide for every person in the country. 
That is what they spray on these foods that contain GMOs. Whatever the 
reason, Americans deserve to know what is in the food they are eating. 
Some want to know it just to have the information.
  Some in the food and chemical industry say that adding this very 
small piece of information would confuse or alarm consumers. This is an 
old and familiar argument raised by virtually every industry when they 
want to avoid giving consumers basic facts. In fact, a 2014 study from 
the Journal of Food Policy shows there is little evidence that 
mandatory labeling of GE foods signals consumers to avoid the product. 
There is no proof of that.
  The FDA requires the labeling of more than 3,000 ingredients, 
additives, and processes. Orange juice from concentrate must be 
labeled. Consumers should be able to choose the product they prefer. If 
they like it from concentrate, fine. If they prefer it in a different 
fashion, fine. There is no reason they can't also have the knowledge 
that the food they are buying is genetically engineered.
  The world certainly has moved ahead of us. The Roberts bill would 
take us way back into the dark, and that is why consumer groups call it 
the DARK Act. It is a sham. It is an embarrassment. It is time for us 
to shelve the DARK Act, to listen to 90 percent of the American people. 
For God's sake, if we do nothing else, we ought to listen to 90 percent 
of the American people, and we ought to pass a real bill to help 
Americans make informed choices about the foods they eat.
  Again, I wish to thank Senator Merkley for really delving into this 
issue and coming up with another alternative that will be very 
acceptable not only to me but to, I believe, the 90 percent of the 
people who are crying out for this information.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this debate on the Monsanto DARK Act, 
which stands for Denying Americans the Right to Know, centers around 
two basic propositions. The first proposition is that it would be 
chaotic to have 50 States with 50 different labeling standards. How 
could a food company possibly always get the right label to the right 
store if there are 50 different State standards? This is not a problem 
we actually have yet because we have no States that have adopted a 
standard for GE labeling. We have one State--I should say no States 
have implemented it. One State has adopted a standard, and that won't 
be implemented until July. So we are far away from having any issue 
over conflicting standards. But I acknowledge the basic point. This 
makes sense. It makes sense that we don't want to have a world in which 
every State has a different approach: In this State you do X, Y, and Z, 
and in this State you do A, B, and C, and what the exemptions are 
differ, and the formats differ, and so on and so forth. So let's just 
concede that at this point, it makes sense to have a single standard 
for the country. But a single standard about what?
  That brings us to the second basic proposition, which is that there 
be a consumer-friendly alert that there are GE ingredients in a 
product. That is all. If a State says they want to have a simple, 
consumer-friendly alert that there are GE ingredients, then they should 
be able to do that.
  If we don't want 50 standards, then we need to have the replacement 
be a national standard that provides the same thing, that is a 
consumer-friendly alert that there are GE ingredients. Then the 
individual can do more investigation. They can go to the company's Web 
site and find out the details, including what type of genetic 
engineering it is, what is its impact, and so on and so forth.
  Right now there is a coalition of individuals in this Chamber who 
don't believe in Americans' right to know. They want to take it away. 
They want to support a bill, which is currently on the floor right now, 
that denies Americans the right to know because they are getting 
pressure from Monsanto and friends, and they are not willing to stand 
up for the American citizen, their constituents. They don't believe in 
a ``we the people'' America; they believe in ``we the titans,'' that we 
are here simply on the end of a puppet string. But we are not here for 
that purpose. That is not the vision of our Constitution. The vision of 
our Constitution is that we are an ``of the people, for the people, and 
by the people'' world. That is what makes America beautiful, not that a 
few powerful groups can control what happens here in this Chamber, this 
honored and revered Chamber where it is our responsibility to hold up 
our ``we the people'' vision of the Constitution.
  So this bill, this Monsanto Deny Americans the Right to Know Act 2.0, 
has a few shams and scams placed in it to pretend that it is a labeling 
law.
  The first scam that it has in it--or sham--is an 800 number. I as a 
consumer can go to a grocery shelf and in 5 seconds I can check three 
products for an ingredient by looking at the label; 1 second, 2 
seconds, 3 seconds--well, less than 5 seconds. In 3 seconds I can check 
and see whatever I want to find out. If I want to check the calorie 
count or check for vitamin A or what percentage of the daily 
recommended amount is in the food or if I want to see if it contains 
peanuts because I am allergic to peanuts, I can do it for three 
products in 3 seconds. That is consumer-friendly. That is why we put it 
on the label. That is why we say: Oh gosh, we are going to give people 
the information they want so they can exercise their freedom when they 
buy things to support what they want. That is integrity between the 
producer and the consumer.
  But do we know what the opposite of integrity is? That is the DARK 
Act. Deny Americans the right to know and ban States from providing 
this basic information. It is the complete absence of responsibility to 
the citizen.
  Well, there is a 1-800 number. How would that work? First of all, I 
have to find the 800 number. Then I have to make sure I have a phone 
with me. Then I have to make sure I have good cell phone coverage. Then 
I have to go to a phone tree. You know how these work. You go to the 
phone tree, you listen to eight options, you pick the option, it takes 
you to another list, you pick another option, and then finally, after 
about five levels, they connect you. They say: If you want an operator, 
press this, and you press it and you go to some call center in the 
Philippines. They don't know what you are talking about. This is not 
consumer-friendly.
  Looking at the ingredient list takes 1 second. It is 10 minutes or 
more when you call that 800 number, and maybe you get a message: I am 
sorry, we have a large call volume right now, and we will be able to 
answer your call in 20 minutes. That is not consumer information; that 
is a scam and a sham.
  That is not the only one that is in this DARK bill. The second sham 
is this idea of a quick response code, like this one in the picture, 
this square code. Again, as a consumer you can't look at the 
ingredients and see the answer, if there are GE ingredients, no. Now 
you have to have not just a phone but a smartphone. You have to hope it 
has a battery, that it has a photo appliance with it. You have to take 
a picture of that code, and then that code takes you to some Web site 
written by the very producer who gives you the answer, maybe, or maybe 
they lay out a whole architecture of stuff that obfuscates it, confuses 
you, and you don't really get the answer, when all you needed was a 
little tiny symbol on the package that indicated whether it had

[[Page 3186]]

GE ingredients. So, again, how long does that take? Ten minutes per 
product? Thirty minutes for the first item on your shopping list as you 
compare three products? That is not consumer-friendly--3 seconds versus 
30 minutes--and that is just the first item on your shopping list. 
There is not one person in this Chamber who truly believes this is a 
fair substitute for consumer-friendly information. This is a sham and 
scam No. 2.
  If this QR code had a message on it and this message right here 
written on the back said ``There are GE ingredients, and for details, 
scan this code,'' that is consumer-friendly. That is all the consumer 
wants to know. That is all we are asking for--a consumer-friendly 
alert. Then that QR code for more information is fine. That is 
perfectly fine. But without it, nobody even knows why it is there. What 
is it there for? Is this where you find out information about the 
company? Is this where you find out information about the new products 
they are going to be putting out? Is this where you find information 
about special sales that are going on? Nobody has any idea.
  Well, the DARK bill doesn't stop with sham No. 1 and sham No. 2. No, 
it gives us even more fake labeling because we see it says that a form 
of labeling is to have no label but to put the information on your Web 
site. Well, to call that a label is simply a misrepresentation--and 
``misrepresentation'' is a fancy word for ``lie''--because there is not 
any information that even appears on the product. None.
  So we say: Well, I was told there would be an 800 number. I am not 
finding it. I was told there might be a box, and I think it is for 
finding out if there are GE ingredients. But I don't find that computer 
code box, no, because they have adopted door No. 3, and door No. 3 is 
to put something on some form of social media. But what social media? 
Are you supposed to go to Instagram or Facebook or Twitter? Nobody has 
any idea.
  So now there is nothing--let me repeat: nothing--on the product. So 
what could be learned in 1 second by a consumer, now the consumer has 
fully no idea. And because this whole thing is voluntary, lots of 
products may just choose to put nothing up.
  The proponents of the DARK Act say: No, we have a pathway to more 
information. If companies don't put up information in the form of a 
barcode or a phone number or something on a social media Web site, well 
then we will require something in one of those three areas. That 
requirement down the road still provides no consumer-friendly 
information. It is a pathway through a hall of mirrors that leads to a 
hall of mirrors. It never leads to concrete, simple information.
  Don't you know that if you told consumers they would have to go to a 
Web site to find out if there is vitamin D in the product, that would 
be ridiculous? It should just be printed on the package.
  Don't you know if someone were interested in high fructose corn syrup 
and they were told they had to dial a call center in the Philippines to 
find out that information, consumers would say that is absurd? We all 
know that is the case.
  Ninety percent of Americans strongly believe--or believe when given 
the choice--that there should be this information directly on the 
label. I am rounding up from 89 percent. Let's round it off. When 
questioned as to whether there should be information on the label to 
say whether there are genetically engineered ingredients, 9 out of 10 
Americans say yes, there should be, and 70 percent say they feel very 
strongly about this. So here are our constituents, and 9 to 1, they 
want us to provide information. But up here on Capitol Hill we have 
Senator after Senator who does not care what their constituents think. 
They care only what big Monsanto and friends want, which is to deny 
Americans the right to know. That is irresponsible. That is wrong.
  When we look at this number, you can see by how high it is that this 
is not partisan because it would be impossible to have a big 
difference--100 percent of one party and 80 percent of another might 
round off to 90 percent. But that is not the way it is. Whether you are 
an Independent, Democrat, or Republican, in all 3 groups, 9 out of 10 
individuals, plus or minus a few percentage points, say they want this 
information on the package.
  So here we are with this vast difference in ideologies being 
displayed by the Presidential debate, from the tea party right to the 
far left and everything in between. There is disagreement on all kinds 
of things, but on this, all the citizens agree--the right, left, 
middle, far left, far right--because it is a fundamental freedom in 
America to use your dollars based on basic, accurate information. That 
is a basic freedom that a bunch of Senators on this floor want to take 
away. It is just wrong to take away the States' rights to answer that 
request, that need, that desire for information on GE ingredients and 
not to replace it with a national standard. That is just wrong.
  There are folks who say: Wait, I want to be on the side of science, 
and I don't think there is any kind of scientific information that 
there is any kind of disadvantage to GE products. Well, that is 
fundamentally wrong. If you think there are no disadvantages, it is 
because you don't want to know.
  There are benefits, and there are disadvantages. For example, 
recognize that this tool can be used in ways that produce some good 
results and some not so good results. That is why it is up to the 
consumer to decide how they want to use their dollars.
  On the good side, we can talk about golden rice. There are parts of 
the world that primarily eat rice. If they have a vitamin A deficiency, 
there is rice that can be grown that has been genetically modified to 
supply more vitamin A and makes for a healthier community. That is a 
positive.
  For example, sweet potatoes grown in South Africa are vulnerable to 
certain viruses, but they have been genetically modified to resist 
those viruses so there is more substantive food available to the 
community. As far as we know, there are no particular side effects, so 
that is a positive.
  There are some interesting ideas that occur about edible vaccine 
technology. This is an alternative to traditional vaccines, and they 
are working to have transgenic plants used for the production of 
vaccines that stimulate the human body's natural immune response. 
Wouldn't that be amazing if we could essentially inoculate against 
major diseases in the world through some type of GE, as long as there 
weren't side effects? Who knows, that may end up being a major benefit.
  Just as there are scientifically documented positives, there are 
scientifically documented negatives. For example, let's talk about our 
waterways. I put up a chart which shows that since the presentation or 
production of herbicide-resistant crops, the amount of herbicides put 
on crops in America has soared. We have gone from 7.4 million pounds in 
1994 to 160 million pounds by 2012. It has gone up since. All of that 
glyphosate is basically being sprayed multiple times a year. It gets 
into the air, it gets into the plants, it gets into the runoff from the 
fields, and it goes into our waterways. It has an impact because it is 
a plant killer. That is what an herbicide is. It kills plants. If you 
put millions of pounds of herbicide into our rivers, it does a lot of 
damage.
  I will not go through all the studies that have noted this damage. 
Let me just explain that when you kill things at the base of the food 
chain, you change the entire food chain. This is true for micro-
organisms in sea water, which we refer to as marine systems, and it is 
very true in micro-organisms in freshwater systems.
  Micro-organisms form the basis of food chains and provide ecological 
services. There are a bunch of studies that show the impact of all this 
plant-killing herbicide running into our rivers. It affects the soil 
too. Quite frankly, it even creates some potential for an impact on 
human health.
  Let me explain. Two-thirds of the air and rainfall samples tested in 
Mississippi and Iowa in 2007 and 2008 contain glyphosate. Those are 
rain samples and air samples, two-thirds of which contained this 
herbicide. Well, what we know is that not only do humans absorb some 
therefrom, but they

[[Page 3187]]

also absorb some because of residuals in the food. A study published in 
the Journal of Environmental & Analytical Toxicology found that humans 
who consumed glyphosate-treated GMO foods have relatively high levels 
of glyphosate in their urine because it is in their bodies. We also 
know that glyphosate has been classified as a probable human carcinogen 
by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World 
Health Organization.
  Here we have a probable carcinogen present in such vast quantities--
present in the rain, present in the air, present in the residuals on 
the food. That is a legitimate concern to citizens. Does that mean that 
it is causing rampant outbreaks of cancer? No, I am not saying that. I 
am just saying there is a legitimate foundation for individual citizens 
to say: I am concerned about the runoff into our streams. I am 
concerned about the heavy application and its impact on local plants 
and animals. I am concerned about the possibility of absorption of 
anything that might contribute to cancer. That is the citizens' freedom 
to have those opinions.
  This is not a situation where Members of this body should say: We are 
smarter than they are, and we don't care that they have scientific 
concerns because, quite frankly, we want to suppress that information. 
We don't want to give them a choice. We don't want to let them know. It 
is just wrong. It is wrong to take away States' rights to provide such 
basic information and not have a consumer-friendly version at a 
national level. I will absolutely support a 50-State standard so there 
is no confusion and no cost of overlapping standards or difficulties in 
what food goes from what warehouse to what grocery store--absolutely 
support that--but don't strip States from doing something 9 out of 10 
Americans care about and then proceed to bury that and not provide that 
information in the U.S. Senate.
  I encourage my colleagues: Simply say no to this Monsanto Deny 
Americans the Right to Know Act, the DARK Act. Simply say no. Stand up. 
Have some respect for this institution.
  This is a bill that never went through committee. Not a single phrase 
of this bill went to committee. This is a new creation put on the floor 
without juris, without consideration on committee, and no open 
amendment process. How many colleagues across the aisle cried foul over 
the past years when Democrats were in charge and didn't allow an 
amendment process? They insisted they would never vote for cloture 
unless there was a full amendment process that honored the ideas 
presented by different Senators. But there is no open amendment process 
here. So there we are--a bad process, mega influence by Monsanto and 
friends oppressing and stripping the freedom of American citizens. 
Let's not let that happen.
  I have a host of letters I was planning to read, but I see my 
colleague from Ohio is wanting to speak to this issue, and in fairness 
to all sides of this debate or ideas that he might want to present, I 
am going to stop here. If there is an opening later, I would like to 
return to the floor because of the calls and letters overwhelmingly 
from citizens stating they resent the Senators in this body trying to 
strip them of their right to know.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Oregon, 
and I am sure he will be back on the floor again to talk about this 
issue.


               Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Bill

  Mr. President, I want to address a couple of other issues quickly. 
One is the last act that this Senate took last week, which was passage 
of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. I didn't have a chance 
to speak on it because the Senate adjourned at that point, but I just 
want to congratulate my colleagues for coming together as Republicans 
and Democrats. It was a vote of 94 to 1. That never happens around this 
place. It is because people understand the significance of the 
challenge of heroin and prescription drug abuse and addiction back in 
our States and wanted to stand up and put forward Federal legislation 
that would help make the Federal Government a better partner with State 
and local governments and nonprofits that are out there in the trenches 
doing their best, with law enforcement who are trying their darnedest, 
and others in the emergency medical response community who are trying 
to deal with this issue.
  While traveling the State of Ohio the last 3 days, this Senator heard 
about it constantly. Before I would give a speech, people would come up 
and say thank you for dealing with this issue because my daughter, my 
cousin, or my friend is affected. Today, I was with a group of young 
people talking about other issues, and one said that his cousin at 23 
years old had just succumbed to an overdose--died from an overdose of 
heroin.
  This a problem in all of our States. It is a problem where we can 
help make a difference. I want to congratulate my colleagues, Senator 
Whitehouse and others, for working with me to put this bill forward. We 
worked on it over 3 years in a comprehensive way, using the best 
expertise from around the country.
  Now I am urging my colleagues in the House of Representatives to 
follow suit. Let's pass this legislation. Let's send it to the 
President's desk for his signature. Let's get this bill working to be 
able to help our constituents all over this country to better deal with 
a very real epidemic in our communities.
  Now the No. 1 cause of death in my State is overdoses--from these 
deaths that are occurring from overdoses of heroin and prescription 
drugs. Again, I congratulate the Senate for acting on that on a 
bipartisan basis and having thoughtful legislation that is going to 
make a difference.


                            Read Aloud Month

  Mr. President, I also rise today to speak about something that also 
affects our young people, which is literacy and learning. This happens 
to be Read Aloud Month. This U.S. Senate has established the month of 
March as being the month that we hold up those who read aloud to their 
kids, because we found it is incredibly important for a child's 
development--particularly for the ability of a child to become adept at 
other subjects at school by just being read to and the literacy that 
results from that.
  There is a campaign called the Read Aloud campaign. I congratulate 
them for the good work they do around the country. They started in my 
hometown of Cincinnati, OH, so I am very proud of them, but now it is a 
national effort. In libraries and schools across the country, March is 
held up as Read Aloud Month, where we encourage parents and other 
family members to get into the habit of reading to their children, if 
only for 15 minutes a day. That is all the Read Aloud campaign is 
asking for. If parents and other caregivers read at least 15 minutes a 
day to their kids, what an incredible difference it would make.
  There is one study that is now quite well known that shows, on 
average, by the time a child born into poverty reaches age 3, he or she 
will have heard 30 million fewer words than his or her peers who are 
not in poverty. What does that mean, 30 million fewer words? It means 
that those children born into poverty are at a severe disadvantage. It 
means they can have a lifetime of consequences that are negative for 
them. The more we learn about the way the brain develops, the more 
clear it is that verbal skills--like other skills--develop as they are 
used and atrophy as they are neglected. The younger the children are, 
the more important this is. So reading to children, particularly 
younger children, is incredibly important to their development.
  Even though this information is now out there and the Read Aloud 
campaign is doing a great job of getting the education out there, even 
with all this information we are told that in 40 percent of families in 
America today parents and other caregivers are not reading to their 
kids.
  There is a doctor at Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Dr. Tzipi 
Horowitz-Kraus, who is a real expert on this topic. She stated: ``The 
more you read

[[Page 3188]]

to your child, the more you help the neurons in the brain to grow and 
connect.'' So that is the physiological change that occurs.
  We also know a child's vocabulary is largely reflective of the 
vocabulary at home from their parents and caregivers. There is a 2003 
study by Elizabeth Hart and Todd Risley studying the impact of this 30 
million word gap we talked about between households in poverty and 
those of their peers. They found that by age 3 the effects were already 
apparent. Even at that young age, ``trends in the amount of talk, 
vocabulary growth, and style of interaction were well established and 
clearly suggested widening gaps to come.'' That is another study out 
there about what the impact of this is.
  There are a lot of adults who might not know how important reading 
aloud is and don't feel they have enough to do it, but, again, 15 
minutes a day is all they are asking. It adds up quickly and can help 
close this word gap. As parents, it may be the most important single 
thing we can do to help our children to be able to learn.
  Illiteracy or even what is called functional illiteracy--not being 
illiterate but not being able to read with proficiency--makes it so 
much harder to do everything, to earn a living, obviously to get a job, 
and to participate fully in society. It hurts self-esteem. It hurts 
personal autonomy. Millions of our friends and neighbors are struggling 
with these consequences every single day. According to the Department 
of Education, there are about 32 million adults in the United States 
who can't read. Nearly one out of every five adults reads below a fifth 
grade level. Nearly the same percentage of high school graduates cannot 
read. So one out of every five high school graduates not being able to 
read is an embarrassment for us as a country, our school system, and 
certainly what is not going on in our families, which again can help to 
get these kids off to the right start. For these adults who are 
functionally illiterate or illiterate, they all started with this 
disadvantage we are talking about, not having this opportunity at home.
  Some parents may say: OK, Rob. How do we afford this, because 
children's books aren't inexpensive. How do you get the online 
resources you might want to be able to read to your kids, if not books? 
I have one simple answer for that, which is get a library card. Our 
libraries in Ohio and around the country are all into this effort. They 
have all rallied behind it, and they are all eager to be a part of 
this.
  My wife Jane and I made it a priority to read to our kids when they 
were growing up, and a lot of that came from books we took out of the 
Cincinnati and Hamilton County Libraries. It also had the consequence 
of introducing our kids to the libraries and helped them to become 
lifelong readers and learners. That is one way for those who are 
wondering how to begin. Get a library card, go to your library, and get 
started there.
  I am proud Ohio has led the way in this effort. This campaign began 
in Cincinnati and is now becoming a national movement.
  We do talk a lot in this body about education. On a bipartisan basis, 
we recently passed legislation that had to do with K-12 education 
reform. I think it was an important step, but one thing it did is it 
returned more power back to the States and back to our families, which 
I think is a good thing.
  The new law also authorized grant funding for State comprehensive 
literacy plans, including targeted grants for early childhood education 
programs--what we are talking about here, early childhood. It made sure 
those grants are prioritized for areas with disproportionate numbers of 
low-income families. We also authorized professional development 
opportunities for teachers, literacy coaches, literacy specialists, and 
English as a Second Language specialists. These grants will be helpful 
in empowering our teachers to do their part to help our young people to 
learn to read. Clearly, our wonderful teachers have a role to play.
  To my colleagues, while this is all fine, there is no substitute for 
the family. There is no substitute for what can happen in a family 
before the child even goes to school and then while the child is 
starting school to be able to give that child the advantage of being 
able to learn more easily. Although I supported that legislation--there 
are some good things in there--let's not forget the fundamental role 
all of us play as parents or aunts or uncles or grandparents or other 
caregivers.
  Washington may be the only place on Earth where 30 million words--
which is this word gap we talked about, which is less than the length 
of our Tax Code and regulations--doesn't sound like a lot, but it is a 
lot, and there is no government substitute to close that 30 million 
word gap. Ultimately, it is going to be closed by parents, 
grandparents, uncles, aunts, other caregivers, and brothers and sisters 
with the help of librarians, teachers, and others. We need to call 
attention to this issue to let parents know that this 15 minutes a day 
can make a huge difference. Every little bit counts. Every time you 
read to the child, you are giving him or her an educational advantage, 
you are making it easier for them to learn, helping to instill in them 
a love of learning that will last a lifetime.
  Again, I thank the Read Aloud campaign. I am proud of their roots in 
my hometown and in Ohio. I thank them for all they are doing every day 
for our kids and for our future.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I wish to continue sharing some 
information about Monsanto and the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act 
that is on the Senate floor being debated right now.
  The reason I want to turn to this is this is such an egregious 
overreach of the Federal Government, stripping States of the right to 
respond to their citizens' desire for clear information, consumer-
friendly information, on GE--genetically engineered--ingredients and 
stripping American citizens of the right to know.
  I have already gone through a number of the points that are important 
in this debate; that if you are going to eliminate the ability of 
States to provide consumer-friendly information on their label--which 
can be as simple as a tiny symbol or a letter such as Brazil uses--then 
there has to be a national standard that provides consumer-friendly 
information. Certainly, the hall of mirrors embedded in the DARK Act, 
which says consumers have to call call centers somewhere around the 
world and maybe they will eventually get an answer to their question 
about GE ingredients or they have to own a smartphone and have a data 
plan and take a picture of a computer code and give up some of their 
privacy in the process in order to try to find out this information or 
they have to guess where on social media the company has posted some 
information about the ingredients they have in their product--those 
three sets of components are completely unworkable, 100 percent 
unworkable.
  Ask yourself if that would be a logical remedy to people trying to 
find out about the calories in a product. Instead of finding out in one 
second, it could take them 10 minutes or, for that matter, an hour or 
they may never even get an answer on the end of that call center 
because the call center is too busy.
  The point is that 9 out of 10 Americans believe this information 
should be easily available on the label. I went through those numbers 
before. The numbers are basically the same for Republicans, basically 
the same for Democrats and Independents--slight variations. Throughout 
the ideological spectrum, this is something American citizens agree on. 
Along comes the Monsanto DARK Act and its proponents to say: We don't 
care that the American people have finally found something to agree on 
that goes to their core values about the right to know. We are going to 
stomp out their right to know because we simply don't work for the 
American people. We don't work for our constituents. We work for some 
powerful special interest.
  That is wrong. I hope the American citizens will let their Senators 
know it

[[Page 3189]]

is wrong. They are certainly letting me know how they feel, and I 
thought I would share some of those with you, but before I do that, I 
had some inquiries about this situation of basically all citizens 
throughout the ideological spectrum sharing this same point of view--9 
out of 10. Is it also true for gender and age? Let me share that. 
Specifically, there was a followup question which asked: Does a barcode 
work to provide information on the label or do you want a physical 
label stating that there are GE ingredients? Physical label versus this 
barcode--which people don't even know where it is on the package.
  It turns out again it is 90 percent. It is 88 percent of Democrats, 
88 percent of Republicans, and 90 percent of Independents say: No, we 
want the physical label, not some mysterious label that we have to use 
our smartphone to interpret and give up some of our privacy.
  How about men and women--87 percent of men, 97 percent of women.
  How about younger and older--those who are less than 50 years old, 86 
percent; those who are over 50 years old, 90 percent. Again, basically 
9 out of 10 Americans, regardless of gender, regardless of age, 
regardless of ideology, say: No, this is a fundamental issue of 
American freedom, my freedom to exercise my choices based on basic 
information that should be on the label.
  Let's turn to some real constituents and some real letters so we are 
not just talking numbers.
  Bertha from Springfield writes:

       I urge you to vote against SB 2609 concerning labeling of 
     foods that contain GMOs. Every American has the right to know 
     what they are putting in their bodies. You were elected to 
     represent all Oregonians and protect our rights, be assured I 
     will check yours and every other representatives' voting 
     records before I cast my votes in the future.

  Let's turn to Eli from Medford, OR:

       I want to hear you come out publicly against S. 2609. 
     Please lead the fight to get GMOs clearly labeled without 
     delay.

  Well, Eli, that is exactly what I am doing. I hadn't read your letter 
before I started speaking out strongly because I fundamentally believe 
we are here to represent our citizens--not to bow down to special 
interests--and this is as clear as it gets. This is as straightforward 
as it could possibly be.
  Let's turn to Ms. JC in Salem, OR:

       Please, I am requesting you NOT to support (S. 2609) 
     (referred by some as the Dark Act) when it comes up for a 
     vote in the Senate. I know the Senate Agricultural Committee 
     voted 14-6 to pass the Dark Act S. 2609 last week. I believe 
     the government should protect OUR RIGHT TO KNOW what's in our 
     food. Please DO NOT VOTE to block GMO labeling.

  She goes on:

       Most European nations do not allow these types of food to 
     be grown or sold in their countries. This should give you 
     some information about how people in other countries view 
     genetically modified foods.
       Please do not support this legislation. Your constituents 
     will appreciate your support for their right to know what's 
     in the foods we put on our plates to feed to our families.

  That is a very personal issue: what you are putting in your mouth, 
what you are putting on your family's table for your partner and your 
children. That is a very powerful issue, and here we have Senators who 
do not care and want to take away that right for something so close to 
people's hearts.
  Let's turn to Sheila in Pendleton, OR:

       I want to urge Senator Merkley to vote against the S. 2609, 
     which would block mandatory labeling of genetically 
     engineered foods. I urge the Senator to stand up for states' 
     rights and individual rights to know. We have a right to know 
     what is in our food so that we can make educated decisions 
     about the food we eat.

  She continues:

       The free market can only work when consumers have the 
     information they need to make informed choices. Contrary to 
     what you hear from industry, GMO food labeling will not 
     increase food prices. Companies frequently change labels for 
     all sorts of reasons, without passing those costs on to 
     consumers.

  Let me dwell on that point for a moment. It is completely reasonable 
not to have 50 different State standards that are conflicting, but what 
is unreasonable is to say that putting simple information on the 
label--consumer-friendly information--costs a dime because that label 
is printed at the same cost whether or not it includes a symbol that 
says ``This food contains GE ingredients.'' It doesn't cost any more to 
print the calories on the label, doesn't cost any more to put the 
vitamin D content, doesn't cost any more to print a symbol or a phrase 
or an asterisk indicating there are GE ingredients. So let's just be 
through with that argument that somehow there is a cost issue.
  Ronald from Medford writes:

       Oppose S. 2609, the anti-GMO labeling bill. Allow States to 
     enact their own GMO labeling laws.

  And that is a point--States' rights. I hear all the time from 
colleagues here on this floor about States' rights, that the Federal 
Government should treat States as a laboratory to experiment with 
ideas, to see if they work, to perfect ideas that might be considered 
for national adoption. And isn't that exactly what Vermont is--a State 
laboratory that is implementing a bill on July 1? And we could all 
watch and see whether it works.
  On July 1, there will be no conflicting State standards because there 
is only one State involved--Vermont. So we don't have to have confusing 
labels going from different warehouses to different States because 
there is just one State putting forward a standard. So it is an 
opportunity for us to view that as a laboratory and see how it works. 
Other States might want to copy if it works well, or they might want a 
different version. Then the Senate could say: You know what, now we 
have conflicting State standards, and let's address the core issue, 
which is a consumer-friendly indication on the package, and get rid of 
the conflicting State standards. That would be a fair and appropriate 
role for this Senate to play.
  But to crush the only State laboratory that is about to come into 
existence in exchange for nothing but a hall of mirrors that does not 
give any reasonable opportunity for the consumer as a shopper to find 
out the information they need--the information they can get in 1 second 
by looking on the label but would instead take 10 minutes or 30 minutes 
or they may not even be able to get it at all while standing there in 
the grocery store looking at the very first product on their list.
  Joshua of Eugene says:

       Please support the public's right to know what food has GMO 
     contained in it and work to defeat the DARK Act.
       Additionally, I fully support also the public's right to 
     know where their food comes from, the country of origin, as 
     well as what nutritional content is in all food eaten in 
     restaurants.

  So he is suggesting that we should expand this conversation to 
restaurants. For now, let's talk about packaged foods. And he is also 
commenting on country of origin.
  I want to live in a nation where, if I choose to buy the produce 
grown in America, I get to buy the produce grown in America. I want to 
live in a nation where, if I choose to buy the meat raised in America 
and support American ranchers, I get to support American ranchers. It 
may simply be because I want to help out my fellow countrymen. It may 
be because I think they have superior produce or make a superior 
product, a type of meat. It may just be patriotism. But it should be my 
right to know where that food is grown.
  We have a law, country-of-origin labeling, that does exactly that 
because consumers want to know. It isn't about what steak to put in 
your mouth; it is about where the food was grown.
  It so happens that we are part of a trade agreement--the World Trade 
Organization--that says our labeling of where pork and beef are grown 
is a trade impediment. I couldn't disagree more. We have lost case 
after case in the WTO over this topic. Finally, we had to take country-
of-origin labeling off of our beef and off of our pork. We haven't had 
to take it off our other meats, other produce. I hope we get to the 
point where we can fully restore our country-of-origin labeling because 
it matters to Americans.
  What kind of country are we when we don't even have the right to buy 
our fellow citizens' produce and our fellow citizens' meat? Talk about 
stripping

[[Page 3190]]

away freedom. Yet here comes a group of Senators on this floor who want 
to further strip the rights of consumers. No wonder American citizens 
are angry with their government. No wonder they are angry specifically 
with Congress, that they rate us so unfavorably, below 10 percent. No 
wonder they are cynical because of things like this, where we ignore 
the fundamental desires of citizens and instead cave in to a powerful 
special interest. That is not the way it is supposed to be in the 
United States of America.
  Terry of Lake Oswego writes:

       GMO free food is information we need to have. I need the 
     right to decide what to eat and feed my family. If the food 
     industry want[s] to produce foods without meeting certain 
     standards, using whatever they want to make their product, 
     sell foods to us, what protection do we have? Do we really 
     know the long term effects of altered food ingredients?

  Well, Terry, no, we don't know all the effects, but we do know there 
is a series of potential benefits and a series of problems. Those 
problems are the massive runoff of herbicide--which is a name for 
plant-killing chemicals--massive runoff of plant-killing chemicals into 
our streams. There are plants in our streams--algae, microorganisms--
that are the fundamental basis of the food chain, and that makes a 
difference. We do know this herbicide is classified as a potential 
human carcinogen by the World Health Organization. We also know those 
who eat GMO food end up with more glyphosate--that is herbicide--in 
their body.
  But it is up to you, Terry, to decide whether you have concerns about 
this. You should get to decide. No Senator can come to this floor, 
Terry, and say: I know better. I want to strip your ability to make a 
decision because I know everything. And you know what. I don't care 
about the scientific research; I just want to serve these powerful ad 
companies that don't want you to know. So too bad, Terry, and too bad 
to the 90 percent of Americans, 90 percent of Democrats, 90 percent of 
Republicans, 90 percent of Independents, 90 percent of women, 90 
percent of men--I am rounding off but pretty close--90 percent of the 
young. Too bad for all of that because Senators here want to deny you 
the information on which to make the decision you are asking for.
  Gail of Portland, OR, says:

       Please do all you can to defeat S. 2609. It is my 
     understanding that under this bill, it would be illegal for 
     States to require GMO labeling, even though polls show that 
     93 percent of Americans support labeling efforts.

  Well, Gail, I don't have the poll you have that says 93 percent of 
Americans support labeling, but I do have this poll done in November 
2015 by a reputable pollster that says 89 percent. So let's take your 
93 percent and let's take this poll's 89 percent and just agree that 
basically 9 out of 10 Americans want this information on the product. 
And when asked if they want it in the form of a mysterious barcode that 
compromises their privacy if they use it--they don't even know why it 
is on the product--or they want it in terms of a simple statement or 
symbol, they want the simple statement or symbol.
  So, Gail, thank you for your letter.
  William of Chemult, OR, said:

       I was distressed to learn that the Senate Agriculture 
     Committee last week approved the voluntary GMO labeling. . . 
     . This would be a disaster if it became law. As your 
     constituent, I'm writing to ask you to oppose this and any 
     other scheme that would make GMO labeling voluntary.

  William, I am sorry to report that it is even worse than voluntary 
because an actual label is banned by this bill. A State cannot put a 
real label or symbol on the product. Instead, this is the anti-label 
bill. It says you have to put on things so the customer can't see there 
are GE ingredients. It has banned putting clear, simple, consumer-
friendly information on the product. Instead, it proposes a wild goose 
chase where you have to call some call center somewhere, some 800 
number somewhere and hope that you can get through the phone tree; hope 
that eventually they will stop saying: Because of call volume, it will 
be another 30 minutes before we can talk to you; hope that somehow when 
you get to that call center, it is not staffed by folks who speak the 
English language with such an accent that you don't even understand 
what they are saying or they do not understand what you are saying.
  It is even worse, William, because they want to put a barcode on as a 
substitute, with no indication for the purpose of this barcode, so that 
it is just a mystery. Why is this there? I don't know. Does this tell 
you about their upcoming products? Does this tell you about 
advertisements for discounts if you take your smartphone and you snap 
on this? Because the only way that barcode has value--and every Senator 
in this room knows this fact--it only has value if you tell the 
consumer why that barcode is on the package. If it says ``This product 
has GE ingredients. For details, scan this bar code,'' then that is a 
valuable contribution, but without that indication, this is just 
another wild goose chase taking customers on a crazy adventure with no 
real information when they could have had a symbol that in 1 second 
answered their question.
  And, William, it gets worse. If you can believe it, it gets worse, 
because under this voluntary standard, what counts as a nonlabel--not 
only a 1-800 number or a barcode or a computer code of some sort--what 
also counts is putting something in social media somewhere. Well, what 
social media? There are a hundred different social media companies. How 
are you possibly supposed to discover, even if you wanted to, what the 
information is on that product?
  All of this is designed, William, to prevent you from getting the 
information you want right on the package with a simple little symbol--
not a symbol that is pejorative, not a symbol that is scary--chosen by 
the FDA just to give you the information. Brazil uses a ``t'' in a 
triangle. That would be fine. It doesn't really matter what the symbol 
is because citizens who want to know can find out that indicates there 
are GE ingredients. But, no, that would be giving you information, and 
the goal of the Monsanto Deny Americans the Right to Know Act is to 
prevent you from getting information.
  I want to turn to Anna in Beaverton, OR. Anna says:

       I wanted to ask that you share with your colleagues that 
     this bill is insulting to the intelligence of Americans, 
     limits citizens the right to make safe choices when 
     purchasing food; hamstrings diet and medical professionals 
     who treat, among other things, food allergies and therefore 
     could result in an allergic person ingesting a food fraction 
     that could result in a serious, even fatal, allergic 
     reaction.

  Here is the point: This bill is an insult to the intelligence of 
Americans. Anna, you have this right. This is about Senators who do not 
respect your intelligence, who do not honor your right to make a 
decision as a consumer. They know that this is an incredibly popular 
idea to put a symbol or phrase on a package to indicate it has key 
ingredients because citizens want to know. The Members here know this, 
and they don't care because they want to make the decision for you. 
They do not want to allow you freedom to make your own choices. They do 
not consider you to be an adult. They want to treat you like a child 
who is fed only the information they want to give you.
  So, Anna, I am deeply disturbed about this insulting legislation that 
tears down the intelligence of our American citizens, that says to the 
9 out of 10 Americans in every State in this Union that we want to 
strip away your ability to make your own choice.
  Keri from Eugene writes: ``Why are we protecting large conglomerates 
and processed food companies instead of protecting the American people 
and the land?''
  Well, that is a good question, Keri. I suppose it is because these 
companies make huge donations under the constitutional decisions of our 
Supreme Court.
  It is a very interesting story about the evolution of our country. 
When our forefathers got together to draft the Constitution, they had a 
vision of citizens having an equal voice. That decision was somewhat 
flawed, as we all know--flaws we corrected over time related to race, 
related to gender. But the fundamental principle was that citizens got 
to have an equal voice.
  What they pictured was this: They pictured a town commons, which cost 
nothing to participate in, and each citizen could get up and share 
their view

[[Page 3191]]

in that town commons, could share their view before the town voted, or 
could share that view equally with the person representing them in 
Congress. This is what Thomas Jefferson called the mother principle--
that we are only a republic to the degree that the decisions we make 
reflect the will of the people. He said for that to happen, the 
citizens have to have an equal voice. Those are the words he used: 
``equal voice'' and ``mother principle.'' Lincoln talked about the same 
thing: equal voice as the foundation of our Nation.
  So when you ask the question, Keri, about why are we protecting large 
conglomerates at the expense of where the American people stand, you 
have to go back 40 years ago to a case called Buckley v. Valeo. In 
Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court stood this principle--the mother 
principle of equal voice--on its head because now we have a commons 
that is for sale. The commons is the television. The commons is the 
radio. The commons is the information on Web sites.
  They basically said that Americans could buy as much of that commons 
as they want. So instead of an equal voice, Jefferson's mother 
principle, we instead have a completely unequal voice. Those with 
fabulous wealth have the equivalent of a stadium sound system, and they 
use it to drown out the voice of ordinary Americans.
  Then a couple of years ago, on a 5-to-4 decision of the Supreme 
Court, they doubled down on the destruction of our ``We the People'' 
Nation. They tore those three words out of the start of our 
Constitution, and they did so by saying: You know what. We are going to 
allow the board members of a corporation to utilize their owners' money 
for the political purposes that the board wants to use, and they don't 
have to even inform the owners of the company that they are using their 
money for these political purposes. So we have this vast concentration 
of power in corporations because corporations are large. If they have a 
small board, the board says: We want to influence politics in this 
fashion, and we don't even have to tell the owners about it. So that is 
a hugely additional destructive force on top of Buckley v. Valeo. There 
is nothing in the Constitution that comes close to saying that 
corporations are people, and there certainly is nothing that says a few 
people who sit in the decisionmaking capacity should be able to take 
other people's money and spend it for their own political purposes. It 
was never envisioned.
  Between these decisions over several decades, we have destroyed the 
very premise of our Constitution, Thomas Jefferson's mother principle, 
that we are only a republic to the degree that we reflect the will of 
the people.
  That is the best I can do, Keri, to explain how it is possible that 
this bill, which flies in the face of 9 out of 10 Americans, has made 
it to this floor. This bill didn't go through committee. We have 
leadership in this body that pledged regular order. They were going to 
put things through committee and bring bills to the floor that had been 
passed by committee. But this hasn't been. That is how much, as Keri 
put it, ``large conglomerates'' are influencing what happens here in 
this Senate.
  Judith of Grants Pass says:

       Please do NOT support [this bill] that would block states 
     from requiring labels on genetically modified foods. People 
     have a right to know [whether or not they are considered 
     safe].

  She is right. She is absolutely right. It is whether or not they are 
considered safe. This isn't a scientific debate. There is science of 
concerns--science that I have laid out here on the floor. There is also 
science about benefits. But that is not the issue. The issue is a 
citizen's right to make their own decision. If they are concerned about 
the massive increase in herbicides and the destruction it does to the 
soil, they have a right to exercise that in the marketplace. If they 
are concerned about the massive amount of runoff of herbicides 
affecting the basic food chains in our streams and rivers, they have 
that right. If they are concerned about the fact that there has been 
some movement of genes from crops to related weeds that then become 
resistant to herbicides, that is their business. If they are concerned 
that Bt corn is producing superbugs resistant to the pesticide, that is 
their business.
  These are not phantom ideas or phantom concerns. These are 
scientifically documented concerns. None of this says it is unsafe to 
put in your mouth. I hear that all the time: Well, it is not unsafe to 
put these GE things in your mouth. But here is the thing: That isn't 
the basis on which we label. We label things people care about, and 
there are implications to how things are grown and their impact.
  For example, we have a Federal law that says grocery stores have to 
label the difference between wild fish and farmed fish. Why is that? 
Well, there are implications to what happens in different types of 
farms, and citizens are given a heads-up by this law, and they can 
decide. They can look into it and see if it is a concern. They may not 
be at all concerned about how catfish are raised in a farm setting, but 
they may be very concerned about how salmon are raised in farm settings 
because we find there are some bad effects of salmon raised in pens in 
the ocean that transfer disease to wild salmon. That is their right. 
They get to look into that. We give them that ability by requiring this 
information be on the package.
  I don't hear anyone in this Chamber standing up right now and saying 
they want to strip our packages of the information of wild fish versus 
farmed fish. We have basic information on packages regarding whether 
juice is fresh or whether it is created from concentrate because 
citizens care about the difference. So we give them this basic 
information to facilitate their choice. And that is the point: We 
facilitate their choice.
  Kimberly writes in:

       I am writing you today to urge you to vote no on . . . 
     [anything that would] block Vermont's . . . [bill].
       The right to know what we eat is critical.

  Richard from Portland writes: ``I urge you to filibuster, if need be, 
to stop the `Dark Act.'''
  Well, I would like to do that, Richard. I would like to do anything I 
can to slow this down so the American people know what is going on. But 
here is the level of cynicism in this Chamber: Last night, when the 
majority leader filed this bill, which has never gone through 
committee, he simultaneously filed a petition to close debate. Under 
the rules of the Senate, that means, after an intervening day, there is 
going to be a vote, and there is no way that my speaking here day and 
night can stop it because it is embedded in the basic rules.
  However, I can try to come to this floor several times and lay out 
these basic arguments and hope to wake up America to what is being 
plotted and planned in this Chamber right now. So that is what I am 
trying to do. I hope that it will have an impact. I hope that when the 
vote comes tomorrow morning after this intervening day--Tuesday being 
the intervening day--that my colleagues will say this is just wrong--
stripping from Americans the right to know something 9 out of 10 
Americans want, stripping States of the ability to respond to their 
citizens' desires, shutting down a single State laboratory in Vermont 
when there is no conflict on labels at this point because only one 
State is implementing a law.
  I hope that they will say: You know what. This should be properly 
considered in committee. This bill should be in committee. It should be 
given full opportunity when it does come to the floor--and I assume it 
would--to be openly amended so that anyone who wants to put forward an 
amendment would be able to do so. That is the way the Senate used to 
work.
  When I was here as an intern in 1976, I was asked to staff the Tax 
Reform Act of that year. I sat up in the staff gallery. At that point 
there was no television on this floor; therefore, nobody outside this 
room could track what was going on. There were no cell phones. There 
was no other way to convey what was occurring. So the staff sat up in 
the staff gallery, and when a vote was called, you would go down the 
staircase to the elevator just outside here. You would meet your 
Senator, and you

[[Page 3192]]

would brief your Senator on the debate that was happening on that 
amendment. That is what I did--amendment after amendment, day after 
day. Then, as soon as that amendment was voted on, there would be a 
group of Senators seeking recognition of the Presiding Officer, and you 
would hear everyone simultaneously go, ``Mr. President,'' because the 
rule is that the Presiding Officer is supposed to recognize the very 
first person he or she hears, and so everyone tried to be first the 
moment that an amendment was done, the moment the vote was announced. 
Well, with all those people simultaneously seeking the attention of the 
Chair, it is really impossible for the Chair to sort out exactly who is 
speaking first. So they call on someone on the left side of the 
Chamber, and then, when that amendment was done an hour later--because 
they would debate it for an hour and hold the vote; when the vote was 
done, they called on somebody on the right side of the Chamber. They 
worked it back and forth so that everyone got to have their amendment 
heard. That is an open amendment process.
  I have heard many of my colleagues across the aisle call for that 
kind of process when the Democrats were in charge, and I support that 
kind of process. I supported it when I was in the majority; I support 
it when I am in the minority. Everything I have proposed or talked 
about to make this Senate Chamber work better as a legislative body I 
have supported consistently, whether I am in the majority or whether I 
am in the minority.
  So here is the thing. We have the opposite of that right now. We 
don't have the Senate of the 1970s, where Senators honor their right to 
debate and have an open amendment process. That would really change 
this. That would provide an opportunity for all viewpoints to be heard. 
We would never have had a cloture motion filed within seconds of the 
bill first being put on the floor, and it would have been incredibly 
rare for a bill that had not gone through committee to be put on the 
floor.
  We have to reclaim the legislative process, and right now we don't 
have it. So that is a great reason to vote no tomorrow morning. Voting 
no tomorrow morning is the right vote if you believe in States' rights. 
It is the right vote if you believe in the consumers' right to know, 
the citizens' right to know. And it is the right vote if you believe we 
shouldn't have a process in this Chamber that just jams through 
something for a powerful special interest at the expense of the 9 or 10 
Americans who want this information.
  So tomorrow, colleagues, let's turn down this insult to the 
intelligence of Americans, this assault on States' rights, this 
deprivation, this attack on the freedom of our citizens.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                   Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the next Supreme Court Justice could 
dramatically change the direction of the Court. And the majority of 
this body believes the American people shouldn't be denied the 
opportunity to weigh in on this question. We believe there should be a 
debate about the role of Supreme Court Justices in our constitutional 
system.
  With that in mind, I wanted to spend a few minutes discussing the 
appropriate role of the Court. Before I turn to that, I wish to note 
that the minority leader continues his daily missives on the Supreme 
Court vacancy.
  Most of us around here take what he says with a grain of salt. So, I 
am not going to waste time responding to everything he says. I will 
note that this is what he said in 2005 when the other side was 
filibustering a number of circuit court nominations, and a few months 
before they filibustered the Alito nomination to the Supreme Court:

       The duties of the Senate are set forth in the U.S. 
     Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate 
     has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote. It says 
     appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate. That is very different than saying every nominee 
     receives a vote.

  With that, I will turn to the appropriate role of a Justice under our 
Constitution. Part of what makes America an exceptional Nation is our 
founding document. It is the oldest written Constitution in the world. 
It created a functioning republic, provided stability, protected 
individual rights, and was structured so that different branches and 
levels of government can resist encroachment into their areas of 
responsibility. A written Constitution contains words with fixed 
meanings. The Constitution, and in many ways the Nation, has survived 
because we have remained true to those words. And our constitutional 
republic is ultimately safeguarded by a Supreme Court that enforces the 
Constitution and its text.
  Our Constitution creates a republic where the people decide who will 
govern them, and by what rules. The Supreme Court can override the 
people's wishes only where the Constitution prohibits what the people's 
elected officials have enacted. Otherwise, the Court's rulings are 
improper. Stated differently, the Justices aren't entitled to displace 
the democratic process with their own views. Where the Constitution is 
silent, the people decide how they will be governed.
  This fundamental feature of our republic is critical to preserving 
liberty. The temptation to apply their own views rather than the 
Constitution has always lurked among the Justices. This led to the Dred 
Scott decision. It led to striking down many economic regulations early 
in the last century. And Americans know all too well in recent decades 
that the Supreme Court has done this regularly. Justice Scalia believed 
that to ensure objectivity rather than subjectivity in judicial 
decision-making, the Constitution must be read according to its text 
and its original meaning as understood at the time those words were 
written.
  The Constitution is law, and it has meaning. Otherwise, what the 
Court offers is merely politics, masquerading as constitutional law. 
Justice Scalia wrote that the rule of law is a law of rules. Law is not 
Justices reading their own policy preferences into the Constitution. It 
is not a multifactor balancing test untethered to the text. We all know 
that Justices apply these balancing tests to reach their preferred 
policy results.
  The Court is not, and should not, be engaged in a continuing 
Constitutional Convention designed to update our founding document to 
conform with the Justices' personal policy preference. The Constitution 
is not a living document. The danger with any Justice who believes they 
are entitled to ``update'' the Constitution is that they will always 
update it to conform with their own views. That is not the appropriate 
role of a Justice. As Justice Scalia put it, ``The-times-they-are-a-
changin' is a feeble excuse for disregard of duty.''
  Now, when conservatives say the role of Justices is to interpret the 
Constitution and not to legislate from the bench, we are stating a view 
as old as the Constitution itself. The Framers separated the powers of 
the Federal Government.
  In Federalist 78, Hamilton wrote, ``The interpretation of the laws is 
the proper and peculiar province of the courts.'' It is up to elected 
representatives, who are accountable to the people, to make the law. It 
is up to the courts to interpret it.
  These views of the judicial role under the Constitution were once 
widely held. But beginning with the Warren Court of the 1960s, the 
concept took hold that the Justices were change agents for society. 
Democracy was messy and slow. It was much easier for Justices to impose 
their will on society in the guise of constitutional interpretation.
  Acting as a superlegislature was so much more powerful than deciding 
cases by reading the legal text and the record. The view took hold that 
a Justice could vote on a legal question just as he or she would vote 
as a legislator. Perhaps the Framers underestimated what Federalist 78 
called the ``least dangerous branch,'' one that ``can take no active 
resolution whatever.'' Since the days of the Warren Court, this 
activist approach has been common:

[[Page 3193]]

striking down as unconstitutional laws that the Constitution doesn't 
even address.
  Now, to his credit, President Obama has been explicit in his view 
that Justices aren't bound by the law. While he usually pays lip 
service to the traditional, limited, and proper role of the Court to 
decide cases based on law and facts, he is always quick to add that on 
the tough cases, a judge should look to her heart or rely on empathy.
  The President's empathy standard is completely inconsistent with the 
judicial duty to be impartial. Asking a Justice to consider empathy in 
deciding cases is asking a Justice to rule based on his or her own 
personal notion of right and wrong, rather than law.
  As I have said, everyone knows this President won't be filling the 
current vacancy. Nonetheless, the President has indicated he intends to 
submit a nomination. That is ok. He is constitutionally empowered to 
make the nomination. And the Senate holds the constitutional power to 
withhold consent, as we will. But as we debate the proper role of the 
Court, and what type of Justice the next President should nominate, it 
is instructive to examine what the President says he is looking for in 
a nominee.
  The President made clear his nominee, whoever it is, won't decide 
cases only on the law or the Constitution. He wrote that in ``cases 
that reach the Supreme Court in which the law is not clear,'' the 
Justice should apply his or her ``life experience.''
  This, of course, is just an updated version of the same standard we 
have heard from this President before. It is the empathy standard. Of 
course, a Justice who reaches decisions based on empathy or life 
experience has a powerful incentive to read every case as unclear, so 
they have a free hand to rely on their life experiences to reach just 
outcomes.
  The President also said any Justice he would nominate would consider 
``the way [the law] affects the daily reality of people's lives in a 
big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times. That, I 
believe, is an essential element for arriving at just decisions and 
fair outcomes.''
  With all respect to the President, any nominee who supports this 
approach is advocating an illegitimate role for the Court. It is flatly 
not legitimate for any Justice to apply his or her own personal views 
of justice and fairness.
  Perhaps most troubling is the President's statement that any nominee 
of his must ``arrive[] at just decisions and fair outcomes.'' That is 
the very definition of results-oriented judging. And it flies in the 
face of a judge as a fair, neutral, and totally objective decision-
maker in any particular case. A Justice is to question assumptions and 
apply rigorous scrutiny to the arguments the parties advance, as did 
Justice Scalia.
  Under the President's approach, a Justice will always arrive where he 
or she started. That isn't judging. That is a super-legislator in a 
black robe. In our history, regrettably, we have had Justices who 
embraced this conception. Chief Justice Warren was infamous for asking, 
``Is it just? Is it fair?'' without any reference to law, when he 
voted.
  Justice Scalia's entire tenure on the Court was devoted to ending 
this misplaced and improper approach. In reality, a Justice is no more 
entitled to force another American to adhere to his or her own moral 
views or life experiences than any other ordinary American.
  Imposition of such personal biases subjects citizens to decrees from 
on high that they can't change, except through constitutional 
amendment. And those decrees are imposed by officials they can't vote 
out of office.
  This is not the constitutional republic the Framers created. The 
American people deserve the opportunity during this election year to 
weigh in on whether our next Justice should apply the text of the 
Constitution, or alternatively, whether a Justice should rely on his or 
her own life experiences and personal sense of right and wrong to 
arrive at just decisions and fair outcomes. Senate Republicans will 
ensure the American people aren't denied this unique and historic 
opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I listened to what my good friend from Iowa 
said about the standards that he is afraid an Obama nominee would 
utilize. I note that in the dozens and dozens of cases--probably 
hundreds--that Obama nominees have been voted on, my friend from Iowa 
did not mention a single case where they applied it to anything but the 
law, and I suspect that standard would apply to anybody the President 
would nominate.
  Now, Mr. President, on another matter, I want to set the record 
straight. Contrary to the remarks of the Senate majority leader 
yesterday, Vermont has not recently passed a GE food-labeling law. I 
mention that because I am old-fashioned enough to like to have things 
clear and accurate in this Chamber.
  It was in May 2014--nearly 2 years ago--that after 2 years of debate, 
more than 50 committee hearings featuring testimony from more than 130 
representatives on all sides of the issue, the Vermont Legislature 
passed and the Governor of Vermont signed into law a disclosure 
requirement for genetically engineered ingredients in foods.
  Now, in this body: After one hearing 5 months ago that was only 
tangentially related to the issue, and without any open debate on the 
floor, the Republican leadership has decided that it knows better than 
the State of Vermont. Today we are being asked to tell Vermonters and 
constituents in other States with similar laws that their opinion, 
their views, and their own legislative process simply doesn't matter 
because we can decide on a whim to ignore them. We are actually being 
asked to tell consumers that their right to know isn't, frankly, theirs 
at all.
  I think in my State, in the Presiding Officer's State, and all the 
other Senators' States, consumers think they have a right to know. Now 
we are telling them: Not so much.
  I hear from Vermonters regularly and with growing frequency that they 
are proud of Vermont's Act 120. It is a law that simply requires food 
manufacturers to disclose when the ingredients they use are genetically 
engineered. It doesn't tell them they can't use those ingredients; it 
simply says: Consumers have a right to know. Tell us what you are 
doing.
  Vermonters are concerned and some are actually outraged that the 
Congress is trying to roll back their right to know what is in the food 
that they give their families. Vermont is not the only State whose laws 
are under attack; we just happen to be the State with the fastest 
approaching deadline for implementation.
  The bill we are considering today is a hasty reaction--a reaction 
with no real, open hearing--in response to a 2-year-old law that is set 
to finally take effect and doesn't fully take effect until the end of 
this year. Instead of protecting consumers and trying to find a true 
compromise, this bill continues the status quo and tells the public: We 
don't want you to have simple access to information about the foods you 
consume. You don't need to know what is in the food. Trust us. We know 
better. We, Members of the Senate, know better than you do, so we are 
not going to let you know what is going on. It is no wonder that people 
get concerned.
  Vermont's law and others like it around the country are not an attack 
on biotechnology. Vermont's law and others like it merely require 
factual labeling intended to inform consumers. All we are saying is, if 
you are going to buy something, you ought to know what you are getting. 
If you want to buy it, go ahead. Nobody is stopping you. But you ought 
to be able to know what is in it.
  Producers of food with GE products have nothing to hide. Let's take 
Campbell's, which is a multibillion-dollar brand. It is certainly one 
of the biggest brands in this country. They are already taking steps to 
label their products. They have to do that to comply with similar laws 
in other countries. They said: Sure, we will comply, and we will label 
our packages.
  Our ranking member on the Agriculture Committee, Senator Stabenow,

[[Page 3194]]

has had commitments from other CEOs in the food industry who are ready 
and able to move ahead with labeling and national disclosure. They 
actually know that consumers really care about what they are getting. 
Now the U.S. Senate wants to tell those millions of consumers ``You 
have no right to know. We are going to block your chance to know, and 
we are going to keep you from knowing what is in your food.'' And some 
of these large companies are saying that they agree with the consumer. 
An asterisk, a symbol, a factual notation on a product label is not 
going to send our economy into a tailspin and cause food prices to 
spiral out of control.
  Again, let's get rid of the rhetoric. I heard some on the floor in 
this Chamber argue that Vermont's labeling law will cost consumers an 
average of $1,000 more per year on food purchases. Wow. The second 
smallest State in the Nation passed a law that simply tells companies 
to disclose the ingredients in the food consumers are buying, and 
somehow that law is going to cost consumers $1,000 more per year in 
food purchases? If the claim wasn't so laughable, we might be able to 
ignore it. But we found out where that cost estimate came from. It came 
directly from a study paid for by the Corn Refiners Association and is 
based on every single food manufacturer in the United States 
eliminating GE ingredients from their food. We are not asking anybody 
to eliminate anything--this is not what anyone is asking companies or 
farmers to do. We are just saying: If I buy something and I am going to 
feed it to my children--or in my case, my grandchildren--or my wife and 
I are going to eat it, I would kind of like to know what is in it. All 
we are asking for is a simple label.
  At a time when too much of the national discourse is hyperbolic at 
best, why don't we set an example for the rest of the country? Try a 
little truth in this Chamber. GE labeling should be the least of our 
woes.
  In fact, the bill before us today is an attack on another Vermont 
law. That law has been on the books for only, well, 10 years. Oh my 
God, the sky is falling. It is actually similar to a law that is on the 
books in Virginia these are genetically engineered seed labeling laws. 
Farmers in both Vermont and Virginia have benefited from this law, and 
those selling seed to other States have complied with it. Why preempt 
State laws that have worked well for 10 years and with which companies 
are already complying? Are we going to do that because one or two 
companies that are willing to spend a great deal of money feel 
otherwise?
  GE labeling is about disclosure. It gives consumers more information, 
more choices, and more control on what they feed themselves and their 
families. If we hide information from the consumers, we limit a measure 
of accountability for producers and marketers.
  I don't know what people are trying to hide. Our producers and 
marketers in Vermont are proud to showcase not just the quality of 
their products but the methods by which they are produced. We are not 
blocking our markets to anybody, whether it is GE foods or otherwise. 
If it works, we ought to give people a choice. Why have 100 people here 
say: Oh no, we know better than all of you.
  I am a proud cosponsor of Senator Merkley's bill. It provides for a 
strong national disclosure standard. It would give manufacturers a 
whole variety of options to disclose the presence of GE ingredients in 
their food, and they can pick and choose how they do it.
  I am equally grateful to Senator Stabenow. She has fought hard to 
negotiate a pathway toward a national disclosure standard. We should 
not move forward with this bill without an open and full debate. We 
shouldn't just say to consumers throughout the country: We know better 
than you.
  I am not going to support any bill that takes away the right of 
Vermont or any State to legislate in a way that advances consumer 
awareness. If we don't want to have a patchwork of State disclosure 
laws, then let's move in the direction of setting a national mandatory 
standard. Some of the biggest food companies in this country are moving 
forward and complying with Vermont's law.
  This week is Sunshine Week, so let's hope the Senate rejects efforts 
to close doors and not let the American public know what is in their 
food. I hope they will oppose advancing this hastily crafted 
legislation and work towards a solution that actually lets the 
consumers in Texas, Iowa, Vermont, or anywhere else know what is in 
their food.
  I see the distinguished majority deputy leader on the floor. I have 
more to say, but I will save it for later.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

                          ____________________