the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time on amendment number 3378 is expired. question occurs on amendment number 3374, offered by the senator from iowa, mr. grassley, for the senator from indiana, mr. donnelly. hearing no further debate, all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question occurs on amendment number 3378 offered by the

senator from iowa, mr. grassley. hearing no further debate, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment, as amended, is agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on s. 524, a bill to authorize the attorney general to award grants to address the national epidemics of prescription opioid abuse and heroin use, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense the senate to debate on s. 524, a bill to authorize the attorney general to award grants to

address the national epidemics of prescription opioid are abuse and heroin use, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: 123450 vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas -- are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 93, the nays are 3. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, the opening words to the preamble of the constitution of the united states are familiar to all of us. we, the people. what do those words mean? well, it was we the people who established the u.s. constitution. we established, among other things, the senate in article 1,

section 1 of the constitution. it is for the people and my colleagues that i, along with every other public official across these united states, now serve. and it was on behalf of the people that the constitution established one supreme court, consisting of judges appointed by and with the advice and consent of the senate. since the tragic passing of the late justice antonin scalia, there has been a great deal of debate about this particular provision of the constitution, but there should be no controversy. the text of our founding charter is clear. the president has full and complete power to nominate individuals to the supreme court, and the senate has full and complete power to reject or confirm the nominee. it's as simple as that. indeed, the senate retains complete discretion with respect to whether it should even

consider, much less accept or reject, presidential nominees. this should not be controversial. it is how virtually every student of the constitution and how nearly every member of congress has understood the senate's power of advice and consent for the past 228 years since the constitution was ratified. senator harry reid said in 2005 nowhere in that document does it say the senate has the duty to give presidential nominees a vote. senator pat leahy in 2003 acknowledged that the power of advice and consent included the power to withhold consent. then-senator joe biden, in 1992, argued from the floor of this chamber that the senate should refuse to consider a supreme court nominee until the people have spoken in the upcoming presidential election. but now with the presidential election in full swing, some of

my friends on the other side of the aisle maintain that the opposite is true. some argue instead that the senate is constitutionally obligated to hold hearings and to vote on any candidate that president obama might eventually nominate to replace justice scalia on the supreme court. i respectfully dissent. if this atextual and indeed ahistorical account of the constitution were accurate -- and it is not -- but if it were, then prior senates violated the constitution when they did not cast up-or-down votes on supreme court nominees. even the standing rules of the senate would be themselves suspect under this theory. contemplating as they do that -- quote -- nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the senate

by the president." close quote. neither does the prospect of a temporary eight-member supreme court raise any significant constitutional concern or even any significant pragmatic concern for the supreme court of the united states. for instance, during the supreme court's 2010-2011 term, the court decided over 30 cases with eight or fewer justices participating almost entirely as a result of recusals, arising as they often do in this circumstance from justice kagan's nomination. similarly, following the retirement of justice powell in 1987, the court acted on 80 cases with eight or fewer justices. in short, the sky does not fall when the court operates with only eight justices. as justice breyer recently stated, the work of the court,

for the most part, will not change. now, we have to remember that any supreme court nominee made by president obama would not be seated until weeks before the people choose the next president. let me explain what i mean by that. even if the president of the united states were to nominate someone today to serve on the supreme court of the united states to replace justice scalia, using historical averages under any calculation of the amount of time that it typically takes to confirm a supreme court justice, that confirmation could not be completed until after the supreme court is scheduled to have heard its last oral arguments for this term, the term that began in october of 2015. what does that mean? well, in means that for the rest of this year, the justice

couldn't participate in cases being argued this year. and what that also means is by the time the court reassumes its work and begins its next session starting in october of this year, that we would be just seeks before the next presidential election, and yet that would be the first moment at which any null confirmed -- any newly confirmed justice would start hearing cases being argued before the court, cases being argued on their merits for consideration before the court, just weeks before the next generally election. consider also that since the nomination of justice scalia to the supreme court in 1986, nearly 30 years ago, it has taken more than 70 days on average for the senate to confirm or reject a nominee after that nominee has been submitted by the president to the senate for its advice and consent. and so again, based on that historic average, even if the president nominated somebody

today and assuming that nominee were confirmed, that individual would not be seated in time to hear or rule on any of the cases the court's considering on the merits for its docket this year, and that would of course mean that the next time arguments were heard, the first time this particular justice could participate in such arguments on the merit of the court would be just weeks before the presidential election. this is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, a court that considers not only the interpretation of federal laws, statutes and regulations in operation within the federal government but also the very meaning of the constitution itself. in light of the fact that this is a lifetime appointment to that court and in light of the fact that the people are about to speak, this november, and to decide who ought to occupy the oval office, we should in

respect and deference to the people of this great country wait until the american people have spoken. they deserve a voice. in my view, the future of the supreme court is now at stake and the election for our next president is of course well under way already, and so it is the people who should determine what kind of supreme court they wish to have. now, the president is entitled, of course, to discharge his own constitutional authority to nominate. no one can take that from him. that belongs to him. but the senate is equally entitled to withhold consent and to protect the people's voice. we have to remember that it was considered at the constitutional convention the possibility that the senate would itself have the

power to nominate, the exclusive power to nominate executive branch officials. it was also suggested that the senate be given a veto power over the president's appointment prerogative. neither of those ended up in the constitution. instead what we ended up in the constitution, based on, i believe, the massachusetts constitution, was a shared power, one in which the president has the power to nominate but does not have the power to apoint unless or until such time as the senate chooses to grant its advice and consent and thereby confirm a nominee put forward by the president. as james madison wrote in the federalist papers, ambition must counteract ambition, and the people should decide. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. a senator: mr. president, are he in a qawrk? the presiding officer: we are. a senator: i ask that the qawrk be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president, there's a vacancy on the most important court in america, and the message from senate republicans is crystal clear. forget the constitution. it doesn't matter who president obama nominates because the republicans will allow no votes on that nominee. they will hold no hearings on that nominee. their response to one of the most solemn and consequential tasks that our government performs, the confirmation of a supreme court justice will be to pretend that that nominee and president obama himself simply do not exist. cannot see them. cannot hear them. ms. warren: at the same time

that they are blocking all possible supreme court nominees, senate republicans are in a panic because their party seems to be on the verge of nominating one of two extreme illses for president -- extremists for president. two candidates who think nothing about attacking the legitimacy of their political opponents and demeaning millions of americans. two candidates whose extremism republicans worry will lead their party to defeat in november. now these are not separate issues. they are the same issue. if republican senators want to stand up to extremists running for president, they can start right now by standing up to extremists in the senate. they can start by doing what they were elected to do right here in the senate. they can start by doing their jobs. the refusal of the republican senators to execute the most basic constitutional duties of their office is shocking, but it is not new. article 2, section 2 of the

constitution says that the president of the united states shall nominate judges, executive officials, and justices to the supreme court with the advice and congress sent -- consent of the senate. there is no secret clause that says except when that president is a democrat. but for seven years that is how republicans in the senate have acted. since the first day of the obama presidency, republican senators have bowed to extremists who reject his legitimacy and abuse the rules of the senate in an all out effort to cripple his administration and to paralyze the federal courts. the constitution directs senators to provide advice and consent on the president's nominees, and every senator swore an oath to uphold the constitution. if senators object to a nominee's qualification, they can vote no and then go explain themselves to the american people.

president obama and i are members of the same political party, but i haven't agreed with every single nomination he's made and i haven't been shy about it. but that's how advice and consent works. learn about the nominees and then use your best, good faith judgment about their qualifications. but republican extremists aren't voting against individuals based on a good-faith judgment about a specific person. no, they are blocking votes wholesale in order to keep those jobs vacant and undermine the government itself. for years republicans have executed a strategy to delay votes on confirming government officials across the board. in 2013 only one year into president obama's second term, republican leaders flatly rejected his authority to confirm any judges to fill any of the three open seats on the second highest court in the

country. and democrats had to change the filibuster rules in order to move those nominees forward. once republicans took over the senate in 2015, judicial nominations nearly ground to a halt. it's not just judges. do months after the president won reelection, republicans held up his nominees to run the department of labor and the environmental protection agency largely on the suspicion that those highly qualified individuals might actually help those agencies do their work. for years republicans held up nominees to the national labor relations board. even republican nominees in order to cripple the ability of that 80-year-old agency to resolve disputes between workers and their bosses. for years republicans held up the president's choice to run the consumer financial protection bureau, refusing to

confirm anyone unless the president would agree to gut the agency. republicans regularly hold up the confirmation of dozens of ambassadors undermining our national security and our relationships with other nations. last year republicans blocked confirmation of the attorney general, the highest law enforcement official in this country, blocked her for 166 days. that's longer than it took the senate to consider the prior seven attorneys general combined for more than a year the republican chairman of the banking committee hasn't held a single vote on any of the 16 presidential nominees sitting on his desk, not even nominees who are critical to maintaining the financial stability of this country or the ones who are

responsible for choking off the flow of money to isis. the message couldn't be clearer. no matter how much it damages the nation, no matter how much it undermines the courts, no matter whether it cripples the government or lays waste to our constitution, senate republicans do pretty much everything they can to avoid acknowledging the legitimacy of our democratically elected president. for too long the republicans in the senate have wanted to have it both ways. they want to feed the ugly lies and nullify the obama presidency by also claiming that they can govern responsibly. well that game is over. candidates are motivated and unable to govern, reflecting the same extremism that has been nursed along for seven years right here in the united states senate are on the verge of

winning the republican party's nomination for president. and now republican senators must make a decision. because here's the deal. extremists may not like it but barack obama won the presidency in 2008 by 9 million votes. he won reelection in 2012 by 5 million votes. there were no recounts and no hanging chads, no stuffing the ballot box or tamperingit voting machines, no intervention by the united states supreme court. no. barack obama was elected the legitimate president seven years ago and he is the legitimate president right now. so if it is true that some republican senators are finally ready to stand up to the extremism that denies the legitimacy of this president and of the constitution, i say to you do your job. vote for a supreme court nominee

do your job. vote on district court judges and circuit court judges. do your job. vote on ambassadors. do your job. vote on agency leaders and counterterrorism officials. if you want to stop extremism in your party, you can start by showing the american people that you respect the president of the united states and the constitution enough to do your job right here in the united states senate. thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: i also ask that my intern be conveyed the privileges of the floor for the balance of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. today i rise to address the responsibility of this senate and its advice and consent role under the constitution. of course the president's duty is to nominate a justice when a vacancy exists for a justice, and that responsibility is very clearly written into our constitution, and the constitution also very clearly

conveys the senate's role in providing advice and consent. this was the vision of our founding document, and actually our founding fathers wrestled with exactly how to best construct this nomination and confirmation process. they knew that there had to be a way to appoint judges in the judiciary and certainly ambassadors and directors and executive branch, but how to go about that. some argued in those early efforts to craft the constitution that this responsibility should be with the executive, with the president, and others argued that no, no, it's better given to the assembly, to the body. well, that conversation went back and forth and we can read a little bit about the thinking through hamilton's -- alexander hamilton's federalist paper 76 because he laid out the conversations that went back and forth. they recognized that there were certainly advantages to having

the president make the appointments, and i quote from alexander hamilton's paper -- "the sole and undivided responsibility of one man will naturally get a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard reputation. he wants to account for stronger obligations and more interested to investigate the care, qualities requisite to the stations to be filled." in short, direct accountability to one individual who would be responsible for carrying that out. but they were also concerned about some disadvantages of the executive-making appointments. giving absolute power of appointment to the president could lead to unwarranted favoritism, as it was put, or incompetence in those appointed. well, then again, they thought how about the assembly. they recognize that you have certainly a rich makeup of views in assembly and perhaps that could be of value. on the other hand, they also felt that there would be a lot

of horse trading over appointments and that they would just never get the job done. and indeed, as hamilton noted -- quote -- "the intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often left out of sight." so that was the dilemma, and it came up with a -- and they came up with a strategy to take the strength of the executive and the strength of the assembly. specifically, that you would indeed have the power invested in one person and of course the executive -- creating nominations for the executive branch wanted to make sure those folks were competent, but there was also still this concern about what if there was too much favoritism and what if individuals of unfit character were appointed to the bench. so give the senate the chance to review and provide consent, or as hamilton wrote -- quote -- "to prevent the appointment of unfit characters. " that's what it boiled down to.

so the strength of the executive and the strength of the senate combined in order to solve this knotty problem of how you filled out the key posts in the judiciary and the key posts in the executive. all of this led to the exact crafting of art 2, section 2 of the constitution. and it referred that the president, he shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the senate shall appoint judges of the supreme court, so on and so forth. and of course this wasn't when there was a vacancy, the president can if he or she desires. this is a responsibility. you have to fill the position. so the president has an obligation under this clause and we here in the senate have an obligation to follow up with the advice and consent function. so that's where we stand and why

this esteemed chamber has operated now throughout the more than 200-year history in providing that check and balance on the executive. it is the president's responsibility to nominate and it is our responsibility to vet those nominees, to examine them, to see if they have the fit characteristics both of their own qualifications and their character. and that's the basis. qualifications and character. that's the question that we have addressed in this chamber century after century. but here we are today with a unique circumstance in which the leadership of this body has said, we are not going to fulfill the responsibility that's given to us under the constitution. we're going on strike.

we don't want to do our job. i think the american people are saying the opposite. senate, do your job. senate, you were assigned a job in the constitution. senators, you signed an oath to abide by that constitution. you have a responsibility under the vision of our government to make it work. you have a responsibility to fulfill that job, to do that job. now, the supreme court is only the latest manifestation of the challenge we've had with nominations for the executive and for the judicial. i hope we can come together and develop a much more rapid system of investigating nominees -- vetting nominees and if there is not a major objection, having those at lower levels essentially conveyed quickly into their posts because this is something that we know will be the case. we know that over time there will be republican administrations and there will be democratic administrations. and we know that under the

vision of three equal branches of government, that it's not the role of congress to systematically undermine the other two branches. that was not the design f our constitution -- design of our constitution. so we wielded a particularly sacred responsibility not to use our partisan inclinations as a tool to try to destroy the presidency of a different political party or to basically to pack the courts according to our own philosophy. and we are not doing that now. we are failing as a body our responsibility. the constitution says do your job. the people of america say do your job. the leadership here in the senate is saying we refuse to do our job and that is just wrong. well, our court does play this critical role in making sure

that our laws and our regulations stay within the bounds of the constitution. and it is not since the civil war that the supreme court has been left with a vacancy of more than a year -- for more than a yeemplet of course the -- a year. of course the civil war is a circumstance. everyone has been given a prompt hearing and a vote within 100 days. since 1975, it has taken on average only 67 days to confirm supreme court nominees. we can look at the list of justice kagan at 88 days and justice sotomayor at 67 days and alito at 83 and roberts at 63 and thomas 99. souter 69. on through the list, kennedy 65. scalia -- of course he just passed away -- 85. rhenquist 89. do you notice that these are

nominations by both democratic presidents and republican presidents and in each case the senate regardless of the party in control of the senate did their job? vetted these nominees, held a vote on them and proceeded. but now we have more than 317 days, 317 days still left in this administration and the leadership of this body is saying that they're not going to do their job for 317 days, not going to meet with a nominee, not going to hold a committee meeting on the nominee, not going to report that to the floor, not going to hold a floor debate, not because of the standards set up in the constitution, not because of the standard is this a fit character, is he or she fit by qualifications, and is he or she fit by judicial temperament.

the standard of unfit character, no. this is a strike, a job strike based solely on partisan politic s. bringing partisan politics into the very place it should never be, confirmation of our judges. and not 100 days but more than 300 days, totally out of sync with the history of this nation. totally out of sync with the responsibility that each of us is assigned to help provide advice and consent. more than a dozen supreme court justices have been confirmed in the final year of a presidency. i would emphasize that because there have been folks here in the chamber who said, well, there should be some special rule. in fact, they even thought there was some special rule that you don't confirm a supreme court justice in the final year of a presidency. well, that simply is not the case. more than a dozen justices have

been confirmed in the final year of a presidency. most recently justice kennedy was confirmed in the last year of president reagan's final term. and it was not a republican-led senate that did that confirmation. it was a democrat party led senate that did that confirmation because the democratic party leadership and members said this is not partisanship. this is a responsibility we have and we're going to execute it. but unfortunately we're hearing a very different story at this moment from the republican leadership in this body. and it's an embarrassment. it's an embarrassment to this chamber. it's an embarrassment to our responsibility. and i certainly am appealing that it be remedied. there's time to remedy it. the president hasn't put forth his nomination yet. it's time to just recognize that perhaps those comments that were put forward in the heat of the

moment can be set aside and we can still do our job. when people elect a president, they don't say to the president do your job for three years but you get the last year off. when they elect us, they don't say, well, do your job for five years, but you get the last year off. and they certainly don't say, and by the way, after a couple years, you can take a year off from your constitutional responsibilities. a president is elected for all four years. our responsibility to provide advice and consent goes on continuously. in the last 200 years, the senate has carried out its duty to give a fair and timely hearing and a four vote to the president's supreme court nominees, whether the president is a democrat or republican,

whether this body is led by a democratic majority or republican majority. let's not change that tradition. let's not fail our responsibility. in fact, let's honor our constitutional responsibility and thus i'll just close by calling on my colleagues. let's work together to diminish the partisanship and improve the problem shoveling. let's turn down the rhetoric in terms of our back and forth during this campaign year and certainly turn it down enough that we could fulfill that core responsibility of advice and consent on nominations and certainly on what is possibly the most significant and important nomination, that of an individual to the supreme court of the united states of america.

to summarize, the constitution lays out the job before us. the american citizens expect us to do our jobs. let's do our job. mr. president, i'm going to shift gears here to discuss a bill that has recently come out of committee and the way that we should consider responding to it. and this conversation is all about defending americans' right to know what is in the food they buy. the americans' right to know what is in the food that they feed to their family, that they feed to their children. and i will also discuss the legislation that i'm putting

forth attempting to be a bridge between some very different visions on that topic. and let me start by saying this is all about genetically modified food and the information provided to citizens on the package about that. and this often turns into a debate, well, g.m.o. has done some cufl things over here -- wonderful things over here. others saying well, it's created some problems over here. i'm going to acknowledge both of those are true. they have done some positive things but it's also created some challenges and i'll mention some of those. but after we recognize that that is the case, where do we come back to? here is where we come back to. that we should enable the individual in our beautiful republic to make the decision, not have big government make the

decision or suppress information. that is what happens in those non-we the people world. that's what happens in dictatorships. that's not what should happen in the united states of america. we are individuals that have the right to know what is in our food. let me explain some of the benefits and some of the challenges. let's start with the example of golden rice. golden rice was developed by the international rice institute. it provides greater amounts of vitamin a in the rice to reduce the deficiency that exists in many diets around this planet for that essential vitamin. so that's a pretty positive development. i don't know at this point of any side effects or other things that have been brought to light. perhaps that will -- nature's complicated but for now let's recognize that providing vitamin

a where it's needed, a pretty positive thing. or let's take a look at carrots. carrot cells have been transgenicly modified to produce a chemical that treats gaucher's disease. now gaucher's disease is a metabolic disorder where people lack a particular enzyme that helps rid the body of certain fatty substances and those fatty substances then accumulate causing enlarged livers and spleens and bone damage and bruising and anemia. these transgenic carrots are part of the answer, part of the solution. or let's turn to sweet potatoes. researchers are genetically modifying sweet potatoes to withstands multiple viral infections commonly encountered in south africa making this a much more successful crop and providing more food to people who need more food. so that is a positive

development. but all of this is not a one sided scientific picture. there are also scientifically documented concerns or we can call them scientifically documented problems that have occurred with transgenic crops. and let me start by noting the most common transgenic crop in america, our crops that have been modified to be resistant to guy phosphate -- guy phosphate. you can put more herbicides on. herbicides or weed killers. you can put a lot more weed killer on to the acreage. you basically knock out the weeds much more easily and less expensively than other strategies. so what happened? well, basically since 1994,

early 1990's. major crops -- several major crops had become almost 100% transgenic guyphosphate tolerant. it's ground from 1994. that's down here 7.4 million pounds to -- well, let's just round it off to 160 million pounds in 2012 and the number keeps climbing. this is a huge amount of herbside. try to picture in your head 160 million pounds of herbside. well, it is so effective in killing everything except the g.m. corn or the g.m. soybeans or the g.m. sugar beets. it is so effective in killing that, that very few weeds survive.

and one of the weeds that doesn't survive, as most don't, is milkweed. well, okay, so milkweed happens to be the food for the monarch butterfly. so as we have seen the enormous increase of glyphosate applied to our fields, we have seen a crashing of the monarch butterfly ecology. and it's not the only thing affecting the monarchs. several other things are affecting them as well. but it is, in scientific study after study, a very significant factor. well, let's also take a look at something else, and that is that all of this glyphosate doesn't stay on the fields. when it rains, it gets washed into our waterways. our waterways are full of things affected by herbisides. the and so it has a big impact on the ekoflg our streams and rivers -- on the ecology of our

streams and rivers. that is a scientifically documented issue that we're continuing to learn more about as time passes. or let's turn to another issue. this is a fascinating story, and this is about a pest that bores into the roots of corn. it's called the corn rootworm. and so the corn was modified so that it would have a pesticide in the cells and would kill the rootworm when it bored into the corn. but guess what happens? you do this on a vast scale, mother nature comes along and has a few genetic mutation mutae and there and suddenly that rootworm starts to propagate with individuals who are now resistant to this pesticide that's been put into the roots. and so now more pesticide has to

be added to the corn, and then you -- it's the opposite of what was expected. the hope was that this would reduce pesticide. but now you have to put the pesticide back on. and so these are called superbugs, the evolution of superbugs. here we have the adult belt, the rootworm is a reference to the larva stage of this belt. and so these are the type of concerns that are raised. and so i say all of this just to explain that while there are benefits of trans-genic crops, there are also issues that are raised in the natural world. and so anyone who takes this floor and says, nobody should be concerned about bioengineered crops simply is refusing to look at the scientific literature that says, no, there are things that we should be concerned about. and that's why it comes back to the right of the individual to know what's in their food. they want to know if it's a

transgenic crop, and they can look up the details, and they can make their own decision. why have big government say, we're going to make the decision for you? why have big government say, we don't trust you with information and we're not going to allow you to know what's in your food? no, that should be in some dictatorship, not here in the united states of america. well, we have a big battle now because out of committee last week has come a bill -- and this bill is known as the dark bill. it stands for deny americans the right to know, because big ag says, we don't believe in this whole "we the people" model of a republic. no, we like to have a government that makes decisions for people and that denies information to people because we don't trust them as consumers to decide what thoapt eat. we don't want them to know what they're feeding to their children, to their family. we want to make the decision for

them. well, 90%-plus of americans disagree. they want the information to make the decision on their own. they can find out about the benefits over here. they could find out about the concerns over here. different foods have different transgenic crops in them. they get to make the decision, not big government making the decision for them. this bill, this dark act, prohibits counties and cities and states from any decision to provide information on a package to their citizens about what's in this food regarding transgenic crops. now, i got together with the representatives of the food industry and i got together with advocates for consumer information. i tried to find out, is there an overlap that we can craft a businesspeople bill to bring these -- that we can craft a

bill to bring these two communities together. we made some progress on that, so i want to share that with you. basically, a big concern of the food industry -- totally legitimate -- is they say they don't want 50 different standards in 50 different states or throw in a bunch of counties that decide to make up their own rules, and now you have hundreds or thousands of rules. you can't operate a warehouse sending different cans of soup to one grocery store in one county and a different label to a different one in a different state. no, so that makes sense. they want a 50-state solution. furthermore, they want it acknowledged that there's nothing pejorative about the concept of bioengineering or transgenic. they want -- they want to know that people know that this is a situation where there are some positive benefits, and i've mentioned some of those positive benefits. they don't want a label on the

front of the package because they think that that would be scary to consumers. and they want flexibility in exactly what system they use to alert. well, the bill i put forward provides all of those goals, 509-state solution and nothing on the front of the package and nothing pejorative and flexibility of the food industry. it does not go -- the final step that much of the food industry wants, and that is no on-package labeling, because then there's no compromise between the two sides. but on the consumer side, they' like to have something that is mandatory so it's on each package of the food, they want it clear so a person can pick up the food or the can, the sack and figure it out, that it's easy to identify on the package, and so that's the compromise bill that i've put forward. and it enables the food industry to either put an asterisk on an

ingredient that is bioengineered and explain it below, or it enables an industry to put a symbol in parens on an ingredient, or it enables an industry to pu just put a symbon the panel. in brazil 4 they use a "t." it is not scare rhode island for those who want to know, it is identified. soy nownow, this approach of siy -- nothing scary, simple access, you can e-see it -- this the fablght bulk of what both sides want to accomplish. 50-state standard, and so it's been endorsed by a uminumber of groups. my bill has been endorsed by campbells, stonyfield, nature's path. it's been endorsed by amy's kitchen and ben & jerry's. all over the last few days. this is fair.

we can give up the ability of each state to have a separate labeling system if we do this simple symbol or paren or asterisk on the ingredients panel so a person who cares to look it up -- i think about it this way. my daughter has always wanted to buy products that don't have highly enriched corn syrup. and -- or high-fructose corn syrup is the term. along the way she read something that -- she thought, that's not something i want to buy. often the ingredients are very tiny print p. but she looks, she can figure it out. it is the same thing for this. enable the consumer who is willing to make the effort, who wants to make the effort, to be able to pink the can -- again, doesn't have to be on the front -- and find out what's going on. now, this is really the world standard. that is, 64 other countries,

including 28 members of the european union -- japan, australia, brazil -- they all require some type of indication on the ingredients panel or on the package. you know who else is in that group? china. now, china is a dictatorship. china doesn't deny it's citizens the right to know. how is it possible that a bill in this chamber has been introduced to take away the right of americans to know what's in their food? even china doesn't do that. and we mustn't do it either. i appreciate the folks who have already signed up to sponsor this bill. senator li leahy, senator teste, senator gillibrand, senator murphy, senator blumenthal, thank you. thank you for stand up for your citizens' right to know. thank you for standing up for a

fair compromise that solves the big problem the food industry is facing with the potential of 50 different states having 50 different standards. thank you for finding the area of compromise that works on both sizesides of this equation. so i appreciate the endorsements. i appreciate the sponsors. what i really appreciate is that we have freedom of speech in our country to be able to carry on this conversation. but how is it consistent to have freedom of speech and then say, we want to ban information from our consumers? how is that consistent? this is like the mob that says, we don't want our citizens to read certain books, so we are going to burn them. we are going to ban them. and that's what this dark act does that's been introduced and come through the agriculture

committee. it bans the ability of states to provide information to their consumers. that is just wrong. even china doesn't go there, and let's not either. thank you, mr. president. and, mr. president, i'd note the example after quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

s. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. portman portman mr. president -- portman mr. portman: earlier we had legislation to move forward on the comprehensive addiction and recovery act, legislation to make the better partner with nonprofits in the trenches dealing with this now epidemic level of heroin addiction,

prescription drug addiction, overdoses today, as we are here in the senate on average we'll lose over 100 people a day to deaths on overdoses. frankly, that's just part of the probably, as horrible as that is. so many people are being saved by this miracle drug called nalaxone or narcan. also others who may not be overdosing are not working. their families are broken apart. they are committing crimes to support their a -- addiction. so many americans are not achieving their god given purpose because of this addiction epidemic gripping this country. the debate on the floor we've had over the past week has been very interesting. to me it's the first time in decades that this congress has taken up this issue in this manner. mr. portman: we have had a very open debate on addiction policy. what does it mean? i think what you've heard members say on both sides of the aisle is that we have learned a

lot about addiction over the years and that addiction now is viewed by most as a disease, an illness, like other illnesses, it needs treatment. and i think that's a very important change you see in terms of how we address this issue and the policy before us today, that's on this floor that i hope we'll vote on within the next 12 hours or so represents a change of thinking about this. that indeed we want to do everything we can to prevent addiction in the first place to keep people out of the funnel of addiction, have better efforts at education and prevention, and that's in this legislation. also once we have people who are addicted we need to get them into treatment. and for people who are arrested for possession, who are users of drugs, better to get them into treatment and recovery than just getting them into jail or prison, because we have found that that hasn't worked. so, the criminal justice system has a role to play here.

legalization is not a good idea. but that ought to be in part diverting people into treatment that works better for them to be able to get at this problem. otherwise folks will continue to see these incredibly high levels of use, addiction and all the negative consequences that stem from that. i want to thank my coauthor of this legislation, senator sheldon whitehouse. he and i have worked together over the past few years on this legislation, bringing in experts from all over the country and getting expertise from our home states. in ohio we've had a number of round table discussions that added a lot of important input to be able to come up with legislation that actually works, that's actually going to direct funding to evidence-based programs in prevention and treatment and recovery that work. we've talked a lot to our law enforcement community. that's one reason the fraternal order of police supports our legislation. so do the sheriffs oh, -- association, the attorneys general because we have worked with them to say how can be more effective in dealing with this problem you have in your

community. and if you talk to law enforcement, you talk to firefighters, you talk to emergency medical folks, they will tell you this issue is at the top of their list. they're frustrated by it. they're looking for solutions, and this legislation helps to come up with solutions. i also want to thank senator ayotte, senator klobuchar and 42 bipartisan cosponsors for their support of this legislation. it is comprehensive, evidence-based and will make a difference. not only does it have a lot of support here in the united states senate -- and i hope we'll see that again in the final vote on this -- but it also has support in the house of representatives. there is a companion bill -- at one time it was identical to our legislation -- also called care remarks the comprehensive addiction and recovery act -- but it is very similar to the house companion bill. over 80 cosponsors of that legislation on the house side as well. if we pass it here in the senate, we have a very good chance of passing it in the house, getting it to the president for his signature so it can begin to make a differ i