on the bill. a vote is expected tomorrow. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. merciful god, you and you alone have brought us to this moment. help us to hear your whispers and to follow your leading. speak to our lawmakers about the difficult issues of our time, reassuring them that you

continue to take control of our destinies. teach them to count their blessings, cultivating an attitude of gratitude. give us the wisdom to shut out yesterday's disappointments and tomorrow's fears. show us how to live in day-tight compartments with total dependence on your mercy and grace. help us to cherish the freedom of this land as you continue to emancipate us from sin's slavery. we pray in your sacred name. amen.

the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: in the last national election, the american people elected a republican senate. since then we've accomplished a lot of important things for our

country. landmark education reform, permanent tax relief for families, and small businesses, significant action to repair america's roads and bridges, and just last week decisive steps to address the prescription, opioid and heroin epidemic. the republican senate has been able to lead on many important issues because we've focused on areas where both sides can agree. rather than just fight about issues where we don't. now everyone knows one issue where we don't agree, and that's where the american people deserve a voice in filling the current supreme court vacancy. republicans think people deserve a voice in this important vacancy. the president and senate democrats do not. whoever it shows to fill the supreme court could radically change the direction of the court for a generation. the american people obviously deserve a voice in such an important conversation.

they can continue making their voices heard and we can continue doing our work in the senate to move america forward on important issues. americans elected this republican senate to serve as a check and balance to the president. it's natural that both party ls disagree -- parties will disagree in some areas. it's natural that we'll find common ground in others. let's keep focused on those areas of common ground. for instance, today i hope colleagues across the aisle will join with us in working to protect middle-class families from unnecessary and unfair increases in their food and grocery bills. vermont passed food labeling legislation that will be implemented soon and could increase annual food costs across america by more than a thousand dollars per family. it's one state's decision but it could negatively affect families, especially middle and lower-income families in other states. now we see other states

following in vermont's footsteps which could lead to a patchwork of state laws. we should work to protect america's middle class from the unfair higher food prices that could result and that's just what the senate is working to do now. we know this may be the last chance to stop this economic blow to the middle class, but we can't act for colleagues block us from helping the middle class. as our democratic colleagues know, we're eager to continue working toward a solution. i would encourage our colleagues across the aisle to work with bill managers to offer amendments or alternative proposals that they may have. the common sense bipartisan legislation offered by chairman pat roberts of the agriculture committee would set clear science-based standards in order to prevent families from being unfairly hurt by a patch work of conflicting state and local labeling laws passed in places where they don't even live.

this bipartisan bill would help meet consumer interest for information about how food is made while keeping costs from rising at every level of production. it's earned the support of more than 650 groups nationally, including farmers and small businesses. and as kentucky's agriculture commissioner put it, this bipartisan bill would allow for a more efficient flow of food to consumers everywhere and would cut down on production costs. now we know this is not a safety or health issue. it's a market issue. officials at both usda and the f.d.a., the for agencies charged with ensuring the safety and delivery of our nation's food supply have found that there are no health, safety or nutritional risks associated with bioengineered crops and products. at the same time we recognize that many families have a desire to know what's in the food they're purchasing. that's why the legislation

chairman roberts is working on would offer incentives for the marketplace to provide more information to consumers while also addressing many of the unintended consequences of a patchwork of state laws. i want to thank senator roberts for his continued work with colleagues from both sides of the aisle to move to a solution this week. the agriculture committee recently passed a chairman's mark by a bipartisan vote and the house passed its own legislation last summer. now it's time for the full senate to act so we can protect the middle class from higher food costs and with continued cooperation from across the aisle, that's just what we can do. the presiding officer: the democratic leader.

mr. reid: 90% of americans want to know what's in their food. all of europe, china, russia, they know what's in their food. we should know what's in our food. senator stabenow, the ranking number of the agriculture committee has been trying to work to come up with some reasonable approach, but would she's gotten is not much help from the chair of the committee. there's no discussions going on right now that are meaningful. the republican leaders offer amendments that's a purely voluntary scheme that is a qas quasi roberts proposal and would leave consumers actually in the dark and that's really the truth. but, mr. president, this is just another case of where the republicans in the senate are trying to create an appearance of doing something without really doing anything at all.

it happens so often and has happened so often during the past year. the things that my friend, the republican leader, comes to the floor and boasts about are things that we try to do and they were blocked by republican filibusters. we've been happy in the minority to be responsible and work with republicans to get things done. we're going to continue to do that. it's the right thing for the country. we're not trying to block everything as they did. in fact, we're trying to get things done. one of the things we need to get done belies the fact this great senate republican majority, is the fact that we think there should be a supreme court justice. there should be nine, not eight a hundred years ago today, this very day, this senate concluded the confirmation hearing of justice lewis brandeis, the first jewish supreme court justice ever. part of his nomination, it was not a custom for the senate to

hold public confirmation hearings of supreme court nominations. but over the last century, these hearings have become a vital part of the senate's constitutional duty to provide its advice and consent. for 100 years the senate has had open hearings to deal with controversies, real or imagined surrounding supreme court vacancies and nominations and nominees. it's disappointing the republicans are now willing to throw away a century of transparency and -- republicans won't even meet with this man or this woman. republicans won't allow a hearing for this man or this woman. republicans won't allow a vote on this man or this woman and that's wrong. they want transparency of what's going on the supreme court. we want transparency on the food that we eat.

they're adamant that president obama's nominee will have thog, no -- nothing, no public hearing, nothing at all. it's clear how far republican ls go to avoid their constitutional -- republicans will go to avoid their constitutional duties. mr. president, i see no one on the floor to speak so i would ask the chair to announce the schedule of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 12:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. mr. reid: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from month -- on from montana. a senator: is it appropriate for me to be talking at this point in time? is it our side of the aisle? the presiding officer: the senator is recognized.

a senator: super. thank you, mr. president. look, many of you know that in my real life i'm a farmer. mr. tester: i know where my food comes from and how it's made. unfortunately that's not true for most americans. we're going to be dealing on a bill called the dark act here probably shortly. quite frankly the dark act doesn't -- does not empower american consumers, does not tell them in the package of food that they're about to buy. it doesn't give them any information when we're dealing with genetically modified ingredients. i was always told that the customer is always right. if you're a good businessman, you listen to your customers. in this particular case, the cution cust -- the customer has a right to know what's in their food. nine out of ten consumers say

they want labeling for genetically engineered foods. some of the folks in this body are not listening to the customers. they're not listening to their constituents. instead they're listening to the big corporations that want to keep consumers in the dark and we cannot let that happen in this body today. the senate is above that. transpairntion si in everything -- transparency in everything leads to accountability and gives power to americans and it's true when we talk about food, too. free markets work when consumers have access to information. the united states senate should not be in the business of hiding information from consumers. so let's be clear. with the new dark act sponsored by the senator from kansas does is it tells the american people that we in the senate, we know what's best for you.

and quite frankly whether you want this information or not, you're not going to get it. how does this dark act do this? first of all it blocks the state from enforcing its own law sos we can throw state's right -- laws so we can toe the state's rights out the windows. the compromise would hide the information behind codes. if you think this is labeling. if you think this is giving the consumer a right to know what's in their food, you're wrong. this is a game. and forú and for the mom who wants to know what in her child's cereal, siewrntion or bread, there may be a lot of 1-800 numbers out there. when it comes to phone numbers, especially the older i get, the harder it is for hu me to remem. or you'll stand in a grocery store aisle and scan each individual product with a smartfoafn -- if you have a

smartphone. if you have cell phone coverage at that location because, quite frankly, in rural america a lot of places we don't. and that's -- that's going to be the label. unbelievable. the fact is, if folks are so proud of the g.m.o.'s, they should label them. so what they're saying is, you can voluntarily do it. but quite frankly, voluntary standards are no standards at all. if they were standards, we'd say to the super pacs, tell us where you get your money from, tell us what you're spending it on and why you're spending it. we don't know that in our elections, by the way. which puts our democracy at risk. there's 64 countries out there that require g.m.o. labeling. china, russia, saudi arabia --

not exactly transparent countries, but they're requiring g.m.o. labeling. vermont passed a g.m.o. labeling law that will go into effect in july. maine and connecticut have passed g.m.o. labeling laws. there are numerous states that require things like farm-raised or wild-caught. f.d.a. in fact regulates terms like "fresh," and fresh frozen." now, some of the proponents phs dark act will say folks from california defeated it when it was on the ballot. yeah, they did. let me give you some figures. in washington, more than $20 million was spent in opposition to the labeling law. more than $20 million. by the way, about $00 of that came -- about $600 of that came from citizens according to the "washington post." about $7 million was in support of that campaign, with at least $1.6 million of that $7 million coming from washington residents. in california, the opponents to

labeling, labeling our food with g.m.o.'s, spent about $45 million to defeat it. monsanto alone spent $8 million of that $45 million. proponents spent about $7 million. so let's be clear. when people have a choice to vote an get the facts, they want their food labeled. this dark act does exactly the opposite. it's bad legislation. it does not empower consumers. it does not empower the american people. and, in fact, it does what the title of this bill says: keep them in the dark. that's not what the u.s. senate should be about. and we need to defeat this bill, whether it is through the cloture process or later on. this is bad, bad, bad policy. i yield my time to the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, would my colleague from montana yield to a question? mr. tester: yes, i will.

mr. merkley: thank you. i appreciate your presentation. this monsanto dark act 2.0, this new version, it says to the states that they no longer have the right to respond to their consumers' interests in providing a consumer friendly label that alerts them to genetically engineered ingredients, but it does not replace that with a federal consumer friendly -- is it right, is it right that the federal government takes away this power from states, which are, full, are places of experimentation and creativity and then does nothing at the national level? is this an overreach of the federal government? mr. tester: absolutely. you came out of the state legislature in oregon. i came out of the state legislature in montana. and, quite frankly, much of the work done at the state leferl, we follow their lead.

this bill does exactly opposite. this prevents states from labeling for genetically modified foods. and it replace it with a voluntary labeling system basically, or q.r. codes that nobody is going to have the technology, quite frankly, or the time to be able to investigate. so, you're right -- this tells folks like vermont and maine and connecticut and many, many other states -- like i said, nine out of ten consumers want genetically modified foods labeled and replaces it basically with nothing. and the proponents walk out here and said, oh, no, no, no, no, no ... there's going to be a q.r. code or an 1-800 number -- that does not give consumers the ability to know what's in their food. this weekend, my wife ran into the grocery store. grabbed when she needed and we

zipped home. people don't have the time to look, unless it is sitting right there and they can see it. understanand that's what your b, senator merkley. your bill gives a consumer the ability to look at a package and know what's in it. that's what we should be fighting for. we shouldn't be fighting to keep people in the dark. we should be fighting to let people know they they can make good decisions. if you have good information, you can make good decisions. and for parents to buy food for their kids, they ar ought to hae the information so they can make good decisions. it is simply a right to know what's in your food. mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from montana. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you very much, mr. president. i picture that an individual going up -- and i'll just use these papers as examples of a food product. i go up and i have three different bags of rice, and i

want to look. i can scan the ingredients list of these three products to see what they contain. well, in about five seconds. if what's required of me is to pull out my phone, call up an 800 number, work my way through a phone tree, proceed to talk to someone who may or may not no what i'm talking about or maybe i'm getting a busy signal for a message saying, i'm sorry, our phone lines are very busy, we'll get to you in 25 minutes, estimated. how long am i going to have to stand, versus the five seconds it takes if there is a symbol to indicator on these products, how long is it going to take me standing in the aisle of the grocery store to find out if these three products have genetically engineered ingredients? mr. tester: wcialg you said it. for the people who heard you

just explain the process you go through, that is not labeling. that's not transparency. that isn't telling folks what's in their food. needless to say, i got to tell you, i think these are a pain in the neck. if i wasn't in this body, i don't think i'd even have one. and there's a lot of people that feel that way. so now i'm going to have to go spend money and get a plan so i can determine what's in my food? not everybody has the resources to have one of these. what's this do to folks who are poor? they deserve to have the food that they want to eat. they deserve to know what's in it. and they're not going to have that capacity. and thend what about folks -- and then what about folks like in eastern washington or all of montana that isn't where a the love people live? oftentimes there's not that service. so it just does not make any sense. you're replace being -- you're trying to replace what vermont is doing with nothing. and that's not fair. it's not fair to the consumer. as i said in my remarks, the

consumer is always right. it is a fact of business. we ought to be listening to folks. that's why we have single-dith approval ratings in this body. we need to listen. we're not listening with the dark act fnlt. mr. merkley: so are you saying that the whole idea presented in this disark acthis dark act 20/k act 2.0, that that's a sham in. mr. tester: bogus. mr. merkley: it is bogus? mr. tester: yeah, it's worse than nothing, at least if you had nothing, you'd no what you have. mr. merkley: so thi thrtion a second -- so there is a second option put in, which is the quick response quod. now you have to have a smartphone that can take a picture of that, take to you a web site to get information, information by the way written by the very company that controls the prowrd a looking at. it is not some third party. i picture that as taking just as much time and complexity and

impossibility for the ordinary person than the 1-800 number. this requires now -- the q.r. code requires, first, that you actually have a data plan to be able to get to a web site. you have a smartphone instead of an ordinary cell phone and furthermore it reveals information about yourself when you go to that web site. so you're giving up your privacy. so is the q.r. code option being discussed also a sham? mr. tester: absolutely. it's -- it's just as bogus as the 800 number, quite frankly, if not more, for all the same reasons. first of all, you have to have the phone, you have to have service. oftentimes that isn't the case. and quite frankly, what we need is what your bill does. and that's just tell the folks tbheas the package. it takes parentheses, three lerks an asterisk is a they's what it is. very simple, the people can understand. they don't have to jump through all these hoops. i know that proponents will say that's going to cost a lot of

money. look, budweiser makes a beer labeled for every nfl football team in the country. christmastime, they put santa claus on and then they make the ones in the blue cans, too, the standard stuff. it's all the same price. companies change their labels all the time. so the fact that we're replacing what would be common sense -- your bill, which is what we should be taking up here on the floor and passing it because it makes sense, it gives consumers the right to know what's in their food -- with something that has an 800 number fo -- han 800 number or a q.r. code is crazy. and the arguments that people are using to keep people in the dark simply are not factual. mr. merkley: well, in this monsanto dark act 2.0 that's been put on the floor, there is a third option beyond the -- for

voluntary labeling beyond the 1-800 numbers and beyond a q.r. code and the third option, door number three, if you will, is that a company can put something on social media, which means, assume, instagram, facebook, who knows what. so if i'm a customer and i am in the store and i see these three products and i want to find out if they were g.e. ingredients and there's no 1-800 number and no q.r. code because a company has chosen door number three, how am i to know that? mr. tester: you don't. and, by the way, there are three doors here. and it's kind of like, "let's make a deal." the problem is, behind number one, two,s -- behind number on, two, and three are all zonks for the american people. this makes no sense to me whatsoever.

because it's confusing. it absolutely keeps the consumers in the dark. and we're actually going to try to promote something like that in the united states senate? it doesn't make any sense to me. mr. merkley: well, the majority leader has put this bill on the floor, and it's not gone even through a committee hearing, because this is a new creation that we've just seen for the first time last night, and furthermore it's being put on the floor the night before one of the most important primary days of the presidential election, strategically scheduled, if you will, so that the news networks are busy with florida and ohio and illinois and two other states, and they're not paying attention to this egregious proposal to take away states' rights and consumers' rights.

now, we had a pledge from the majority leader coming into here about due process. things would be considered in committee and on the floor with an open amendment process. has this monsanto dark act 2.0 gone through a committee process, and is it getting a full opportunity to be heard on the floor? in fact, the motion to close debate was filed within seconds of it being put on the floor last night. is this a true opportunity for the american people to wrestle with a major policy decision, taking away states' rights and consumers' rights? mr. tester: no. in a word, no. and of all the choices that we have out there, that we do every day, food is one of the most important choices we make. that's what we put in our body, it gives us power, it gives us intellect, the ability to do our

daily jobs and work, be successful, support our family. and, quite frankly, this bill and the timing of it is curious, but this bill does none of those things to help move families and people and society forward. it just keeps them in the dark which is disturbing. like i said in my opening statement, the united states senate should be above this. we should be empowering people, not taking away their right to know. mr. merkley: this taking away the right to know, it isn't like the right to know -- i don't know, some detail about how your car was manufactured. as you put it, this is about the food you put into your mouth. this is about the food you feed your family. this is about what your children consume. i was very surprised to read this from a scientific study

that two-thirds of the air and rainfall samples tested in mississippi and iowa in 2007 and 2008 contained glyphosphate which is the herbicide being applied in massive quantityies because -- quantys because of the genetically engineered of key crops, corn, sugar beats to this herbicide -- beets to this herbicide. it's so prevalent, it's in the rainfall samples. it's so prevalent it's in the air samples or at least two-thirds of these samples. then a recent study published in the journal of environmental and analytical toxicology found that humans who consume glyphosphate foods at relatively high levels have higher levels of glyphosphate in their urine. it's actually residuals are finding their way into our bodies. now, there are other effects.

glyphosphate is a known carcinogen, has been defined as a known carcinogen, but it also this herbicide running into streams, study after study is showing big impacts on the microbial population and that's at the base of the food chain so it's affecting the food chain inside our rivers and streams. it's affecting -- there's gene transfer to relatives -- weeds of the relatives of the grown crops. there's impact on the evolution of bugs, specifically the western corn rootworm which is evolving, if you will, to become resistant to the pesticide that is in the plant because of the genetic -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. merkley: i thank you. i ask unanimous consent for us to continue for another ten minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. and so we have these effects, scientific documents are showing.

so when people come to this floor and say it's okay to suppress the consumer right to know because consumers have no legitimate concerns, that there's no scientific studies that show any legitimate concerns about the impacts of genetic engineered plants, are they telling the truth? is that accurate? mr. tester: i think it's up to the consumer to find out and the consumer doesn't know if it's not on the label. we put a lot of things on labels it was not from frozen concentrate. it was fresh "sqoze" if that's a word or squeeze, whatever it might be. and that's the consumer choice i have. i buy it because i like it. i think it's better. i think it's better for you. that's what i choose to do and i think what this dark act does is it -- it doesn't allow consumers to make the choices they want.

they can do the research and make the decision whether they -- to some people they might want to eat it. it may be a positive thing. you know, this is good. it's got g.m.o. in it. i'm going to buy that. for other folks, they would say no, i don't want to buy that. that's their choice. and that's what this country is about. it's about freedom. and now we're stopping that. that's what this debate is about. it's about labeling of food. it's about letting consumers know what they're eating. and let them make the decision what's best for their family. mr. merkley: i think you summed it all up in the word "freedom." our freedom to choose. that freedom to choose if it's between wild fish and farmed particular, we facilitate that

by giving the information on the package. if it's the freedom to choose between juice from concentrate versus -- what did you call it? sqozen, i like that, a new word, beautiful. a juice from concentrate or a fresh juice, that's the freedom of the consumer and they can exercise that on the package. if someone decides they want to have a product that is vitamin a enriched like golden rice that's been done by engineering, maybe they need moore vitamin a, that's -- more vitamin a, that's freedom to choose it. there are studies that show benefits in a variety of circumstances from genetic engineering and there are studies that show legitimate concerns. on the benefits side you have in cases, for example, sweet potatoes in which they've been made to resist viruses that kill them in south africa, that's been very important to the growth of sweet potatoes and the provision of that as part of a

significant source of food in parts of that country or golden rice in regions of the world where people eat primarily rice but they lack vitamin a, being enriched with vitamin a. okay. but there are also studies that show concerns. and so shouldn't we as consumers have freedom? why is it that we have on the floor a bill which not only takes away states' rights to respond to consumers' interests in freedom but proceed to squash for all time and in all geographic areas the freedom of an individual to make that decision and puts up a sham that says, well, somehow a consumer can inquire by guessing at where on social media or going to a phone bank that's somewhere overseas in the philippines to find out whether or not there's a g.e. ingredient or having to

go -- give up their privacy and go to a website sponsored by the company that made the food. that's not information that allows the consumer to make a choice. what if a consumer had to go to a phone company operating overseas to find out if there was -- i don't know -- the calories that are in the food or the vitamins that are in the food. that would be ridiculous. and it's ab surtd here -- and it's absurd here. it is a sham and a scam. it is a theft of individuals' freedom in this country and shouldn't we all in this senate be standing up for freedom for american citizens who by the way when asked in a poll, nationwide poll 9-1 say they want this information on the package. 9-1. and here we are in this deeply divided country where we have this huge spectrum of ideologies

that we're seeing here in the presidential campaign, and yet on this issue, independence -- independents, republicans, democrats, 9-1 -- i'm rounding off slightly but very close, 9-1 in all three categories they say they want this information on the package. and seven out of ten say they feel very strongly about this. so that's the desire of the american people. that's we the people that's in our constitution that we're presentlied to up is port and here we have a bill on the floor that's designed in the dark of night while people are paying attention to presidential primaries and the press is paying attention in the dark of night is trying to take away that freedom, and isn't that just completely wrong? mr. tester: absolutely. the senator from oregon hit the nail on the head. we need to defeat cloture. we need to defeat this bill. if we want to take up a labeling bill, we ought to take your bill

up and pass it. that would empower consumers. it would give them freedom. it would live up to what our forefathers had in mind for this country. instead in my opinion we're doing exactly the opposite. this is a bad piece of legislation. and you're right, the polls do show across the parties, we're all americans on this one 9-1. we've got to listen. if folks are having a hard time hearing what people are saying, just read your e-mails. hear what the folks out in front of your offices are listening to because folks are talking. we need to listen. read the editorial pages.

folks, they're not asking for anything out of the ordinary. they just want to know. they just want to know so they can make decisions. and so i would hope that this body would defeat this bill, put it to bed, and then we can talk about a labeling bill that makes sense for this country. mr. merkley: i thank so much my colleague from montana for being such a clear and powerful voice on this issue of freedom, of american consumers' rights, of states' rights and his just solid opposition to this monsanto dark act, denying americans to know 2.0. thank you. mr. president, we yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: i grew up on a cattle farm where i started helping my dad around the farm when i was just a little boy. in fact, i was kicking hay bails off the truck when i was bigger than those hay bales. growing up most people had a connection to farming. in arkansas that's still mostly the case today. in honor of national agriculture day, i want to say a few words about arkansas' agriculture and what it means to our state. agriculture is arkansas' largest industry. it accounts for over $20 billion in value added to our state

economy each year and contributes to thousands and thousands of jobs. arkansas is a top 25 producer in 23 different agricultural commodities. and we rank first in the nation in rice production producing close to 50% of the rice in the united states. but it doesn't end there. we're also a major exporter of crops like soybeans, cotton, poultry, feed grains. our catfish and timber industries are booming and our cattle inventory exceeds 1.7 million head. our ag industry is also expanding by the day. and we've recently become a big player in the peanut industry. but for arkansas agriculture is more than just a business. it's a passion and a way of life. we have nearly 50,000 farms in arkansas and 97% of them are owned by families. neighborly chats in arkansas often tend to focus on planting seasons and beef prices.

and in towns like darnell, kids don't have to worry about farm chores keeping them from playing with their friends on a saturday because those friends are likely busy helping on their farms, too. agriculture is who we are. i've certainly taken the lessons i learned growing up on a farm with me into the army, the congress and now fatherhood. so today and every day let's remember arkansas' and america's farmers and rample -- ranchers. happy national ag curl tur -- agriculture day. i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

.

mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senate's in a quorum call. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor once again with the simple message for senate republican leaders: do your job and let me do mine. when president obama sends us a nominee to fill this vacancy on the supreme court, republican leaders need to stop playing politics, stop pandering to the tea party and fulfill their responsibility to their constituents, their country, and the constitution. that is what people across the country are demanding. but the hearing republicans on the judiciary committee held this morning makes it clear

they're not getting the message. because while the republicans on that committee say they won't take up the time to do their most important actual job, they were happy to spend their time this morning on their favorite hobby: do everything they can to turn back the clock on women's health care. and while they say they won't even hold a hearing on a supreme court nominee to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities, they were eager to hold the hearing this morning to attack women's constitutional rights. mr. president, i wish i were surprised by this, but unfortunately this is just the latest example of republican leaders playing political games with the rights of women across the country and pandering to their extreme tea party base. republicans love to say they want to keep government out of people's lives, unless, of course, we're talking about women's health care and their choices. they love to talk about the constitution, unless we're

talking about a woman's constitutional right to make decisions about her own body or the part that lays out the senate's responsibility when it comes to filling supreme court vacancies. but, mr. president, people across the country are sick of the partisanship, sick of the gridlock and sick of the games. they want republicans to do their jobs, and they are not buying their excuses for inaction. for the last few weeks, republican leaders have been desperately trying to convince people there is a precedent for their extreme obstruction in this election year. well, first of all, mr. president, their arguments have run up against the facts. they simply are not true. the democratic senate actually confirmed president reagan's supreme court nominee in his last year of office, and that is just one example of many. but in case the facts weren't enough, last week the republicans' message facade began to crumble and the truth began to come out.

first, one republican leader warned that any potential nominee should be aware he or she will be treated like -- quote -- a pinata. republicans say they will refuse to even meet with the nominee, but they and their special interest groups are clearly getting ready to drag him or her through the mud. also, speaking to his constituents back home, another senator made it clear that republicans' refusal to do their jobs right now is nothing more than partisan politics. he said that if this president were a republican, it would be -- quote -- a different situation, and there would be -- quote -- more accommodation. mr. president, we all knew this republican obstruction had nothing to do with what was actually right and everything to do with the fact that they don't like that president obama is president now, but it was nice to hear a republican senator actually admit that out loud. and that wasn't all. another republican senator, the

senior senator from south carolina, admitted last week that this kind of blind obstruction, this refusal to even meet with a supreme court nominee or hold hearings is absolutely unprecedented. he said republicans wanted to create a new rule right now limiting president obama's constitutional authority and responsibility. well, i'm glad he made it clear that what republican leaders have been saying about the obstruction being based on precedent isn't true, but creating this new partisan precedent for supreme court nominations would be absolutely wrong, too. republicans may not like to hear this, but the american people spoke, they elected president obama twice, and they entrusted him with the powers and responsibilities laid out in the constitution. those responsibilities don't just last for three years. they last a full term. and people across the country are making it very clear they

expect republicans to work with the president, meet with the nominee, hold hearings and do their job. but, mr. president, if republicans are open to new election year precedents, i have one i'd like to offer for their consideration that would actually be helpful. i propose republicans stop using attacks on women's health care to rally their tea party base, that they stop using women's rights as an election year political football. that would be unprecedented for sure, but it sure would be a step in the right direction and women across this country would really appreciate it. so, mr. president, when president obama sends us a nominee, i hope senate republican leaders will move out of their partisan corner that they are in now, and i hope they will stop focusing on throwing red meat to the tea party, and i hope they will do their jobs. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i want to thank the senator from washington for her remarks and for her passion for women's health and also for doing our job, for doing our job. mr. president, the senator from washington is right. the republican members of the senate judiciary committee have vowed not to hold a single hearing on a supreme court nominee when the president does his job and sends us down his nomination. they refused to do their job, and i would say if every american just got up in the morning one day and said you know what? i don't feel like doing my job, they would be fired. they would be fired. but do they have time to do other things with their time? oh, yes. what are they doing right now?

and my colleague pointed this out. they are holding a hearing today on legislation that if passed would threaten the health and the lives of women. it is about using women's health as a political football once again. it is about reopening debates that we've already settled, including the debate over roe v. wade itself. that case was decided in 1973, and before that women died from back alley abortions. women had no respect for private personal decisions they made with their doctor, they made with their god. oh, no. they have to keep challenging roe v. wade, and that's what they're doing today in the judiciary committee after they decided well, they just don't have time enough or will enough to hold a hearing on the president's nominee for the

supreme court. now, the decision in roe was very clear. it says that in the early stages of a pregnancy, a woman has the right to decide whether to continue her pregnancy, and later decisions confirmed yes, she still has that right. and roe also affirmed that later in the pregnancy, the health and the life of the mother must always be protected. let me say that again. the health and the life of the mother must always be protected. that is the law of this land. now, the major problems with the bills that the judiciary committee's hearing today is they have no respect for the health and the life of the mother and they have no respect for doctors. the first bill, the 20-week abortion ban, is a direct violation of roe v. wade and a grave threat to women, and by the way, the senate has already rejected that bill, but they are

bringing it back again no matter what roe says that you can't threaten the health and life of a woman, they brought it back. that bill, that 20-week abortion ban, offers no health exception for a woman facing cancer, facing kidney failure, facing blood clots or other tragic complications during the pregnancy, and it would throw doctors in jail for doing nothing more than help a woman who is at risk for paralysis, infertility, who has cancer and whose life would be endangered if the pregnancy continued. that bill, that bill that they say is going to help women harms women. it also revictimmizes survivors of rape and incest by assuming they are lying, lying and creating unconscionable barriers to care. the american congress of ob/gyns

which represents thousands of physicians nationwide, physicians that help women with their first line of health care in many cases said these restrictions are, and i quote -- "dangerous to patient safety and health." so that's the first bill they're hearing today, a bill that's already been rejected, a bill that will hurt women and their families. the judiciary committee is also wasting precious time debating a second bill this morning because we already have a law that we voted for called the born alive infant protection act. that bill that i supported says a fetus -- that a fetus that's alive at birth has the same protections as every other human being. we voted on it, i say to my friend, in 2002. so what they are doing over in the judiciary committee is rehearing a bill that we already voted on and they're rehearing a

bill that passed and then they're rehearing a bill that we voted down. this is politics, pure and simple. our job is to improve the health and lives of the people, not to undermine it. our job is also to act when there is a vacancy on the supreme court. you know, the republicans always quote ronald reagan, and some of us do as well. he is definitely a republican hero. let's see what president ronald reagan said when there was an opening in an election year during his presidency, and he nominated justice kennedy. what did he say? ronald reagan, every day that passes with the supreme court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body. this is not barbara boxer, this

is not patty murray, this is not president obama, this is not vice president biden, this is not harry reid, this is not chuck schumer, and i could go on. this is ronald reagan. so let me say it again. "every day that passes with a supreme court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body." and you know what, mr. president? we have a democratically controlled senate, and we voted on justice kennedy in an election year, and we didn't give speeches and say well, let's wait for the american people to decide the next election. you know why we didn't say that? because that would be laughable, because ronald reagan got elected twice, just like barack obama got elected twice, and he deserves the respect and he needs to do his job, and we need to do our job.

so when you say you're not even going to hold a hearing on the president's nomination, you are showing disrespect for the constitution, and let's see what the constitution says, and disrespect to ronald reagan, i would argue. look what the constitution says. "the president shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the senate shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls and judges of the supreme court." where in this i say to my friends who was saying the constitution should be obeyed, i'm a strict constructionist, they tell us. where are these people? they're hiding in the corner, not doing their job. look what it says. "the president shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the senate shall appoint judges of the supreme court." it doesn't say p.s., unless you don't like who's president.

it doesn't say that. so i say to everyone on the other side of the aisle that says they are strict constructionists, most of them do, read the constitution and read what ronald reagan said. well, the american people have three words for republicans -- do your job. stop disrespecting the constitution. symptom disrespecting our president -- stop disrespecting our president and stop threatening to create a man made crisis at the supreme court. you know, the supreme court has to do its job. this isn't some ideological discussion in a salon somewhere because every day the court considers cases with profound impacts for the american people, like whether states can have voter identification laws that put an unfair burden on voters or whether the american people

have the right to organize and fight for fair pay. and i could go on because almost every issue that american families face eventually winds its way to the court. so regardless of your political position or your personal position on any individual case, we have to fill the vacancy because americans deserve a full functioning court. so in closing, i want to quote sandra day o'connor. now, here's a woman, the first woman on the supreme court appointed by ronald reagan. she made history. she is saying to us in the clearest of terms, and i quote her -- "i think we need somebody there now to do the job, and let's get on with it." so if you don't want to listen to the constitution and you

don't want to listen to ronald reagan, how about giving some respect to a woman who made history and understands how the court functions? we have to get on with it. every one of us has to do our job. the judiciary committee should stop holding hearings to hurt women. they should instead go down to the white house and advise and consent with the president on this nomination. they should stop playing politics. we should all come together. we see such division in the country. it's making a lot of our people afraid because there's no respect. how about we start off with respecting the constitution as a start. and working together to fill this vacancy and showing the public that we can come together to have a fully functioning supreme court. the american people deserve

nothing else. thank you, and i yield the floor. and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i come to the floor to speak on two topics. the first is a piece of legislation that i introduced last year along with the junior senator from new york, senator schumer, right after the anniversary of the september 11 attacks. this bill is entitled the justice against sponsors of terrorism act, or jasta for short. it makes minor adjustments to our laws that would clarify the ability of americans' attacked on u.s. soil to get justice from those who have sponsored that terrorist attack. the senate judiciary committee has considered this bill last month and reported it to the floor without any objection, and so now it's my hope that we can soon take this legislation up.

this is important to the victims of the 9/11 attacks. and actually that's an understatement. this bill if signed into law would hopefully help them and their families achieve the closure that they so terribly need from this horrific tragedy. but this legislation is more than that. as our nation confronts new and expanding terror networks that are targeting our citizens, stopping the funding source for terrorists grows even more important. so i hope senators can work together to get this critical bipartisan bill done soon. on another note, mr. president, i wanted to come to the floor and make a few remarks about the supreme court vacancy left by the death of justice scalia. it's pretty clear that our colleagues across the aisle do not believe that the american people deserve a voice in the process by which the successor

to justice scalia is selected. we made our position pretty clear that there will not be a new justice confirmed in the american people in the elections that come up in november make their preferences known about who will make that appointment. so instead of following the rule book of the minority leader, the senior senator from new york, and our current vice president, the ones that they advocated for under a republican administration, our democratic friends now argue that a lame-duck president should be able to nominate someone to a lifetime appointment to our nation's highest court which will upset the ideological balance on that court for a generation. the last time a supreme court nominee was nominated and confirmed during an election year was 1932, and you have to go back much earlier, to 1888, to find a similar situation in divided government, which we have now.

and vice president biden, when he was chairman of the senate judiciary committee, made perfectly clear that a supreme court nominee should not be considered until after a presidential election has concluded. and as we all know, both democrats and republicans are well down the road to making their selection for their nominee for president, and obviously we will have that election in the coming november. but our friends across the aisle continue to contradict themselves and their previous statements, insisting that this decision is somehow unprecedent ed. well, we know it's not because if the shoe were on the other foot, they'd make clear what they would do. but i thought i might share with my friends across the aisle what some of my constituents in texas have told me about our decision to let them have a voice in the selection of the next lifetime appointment to the court. one man from killeen texas said

a few weeks ago, it is the home of fort hood, one of the largest military installations in the world. last friday i would note the town dedicated a memorial to honor the lives of those who lost their lives in the terrorist attacks of 2009, when major nid dahl -- nidal hassan went on his rampage. "president obama is free to make any nomination he wants under the constitution. the senate under that same constitution has no obligation to hold hearings or to confirm that nomination. the judiciary committee's decision to observe the so-called biden rule is absolutely correct. the replacement for justice scalia should be nominated by the next president." close quote. well, i agree with the letter writer, and the minority leader agreed with him back in 2005 as

well. that's basically what senator reid said in 2005 during the bush 43 administration, that while the president could nominate anybody he wanted, that the senate was not obligated under the constitution to vote on that nominee. at the end of the letter, john asked me to -- quote -- hold the line on this decision. he, like many americans, are passionate about having a say in the selection of the next supreme court nominee, and i intend to do everything i can to make sure that they do have that voice. another constituent from plano, just north of dallas, was emphatic that the senate should -- quote -- give we the people a say. i couldn't agree with him more. the american people made clear that they wanted a check on the obama administration in november, 2014, when they put republicans in the majority in the senate. now we have an obligation to use

that mandate from the people for issues that matter most to our country, and that includes the direction of the supreme court. my constituents are right to care deeply about this because there is so much at stake. as i said, the next supreme court justice could well change the balance of the supreme court for a generation and fundamentally reshape american society in the process. so the people should have a chance for input and should have a voice. i'm proud to stand alongside my republican colleagues and make sure that their voice is heard in the next selection of a lifetime appointment to the court. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, if i could withhold that. mr. president, i have ten unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. these have been approved by both the majority and minority

leaders. i'd ask consent that these requests be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate stand in recess as if under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

i am particularly thrilled to welcome you all here on behalf of politico to the special evening, a new agenda, candid and the u.s. and of the world. as we in washington kick off a week of the first canadian state visit in 19 years, so to our guests from canada, welcome to washington. welcome to the museum. we ordered up a perfect weather just for you. and a special welcome to join us today on the live stream at

politico.com. on c-span across the united states and on cpac in canada. we at political are particularly excited to be hosting this by national event this evening as we launched into the first year of our global expansion. this your we launched let it go your just a few months ago and already it's been voted the number one most influential political news source in brussels. so look forward to more international medical event from us. aconite we are convening very important conversations to set the table for this historic state visit. first we will explore the opportunities and obstacles for both of these leaders to work together, the new elected government of prime minister justin trudeau, and the outgoing administration of president barack obama. first political editor susan glasser will kick us all.

susan glasser will kick us off with a conversation about politics, the global economy and trade. inventor energy reporter will examine the prospects for clean energy agenda for north america. and lastly i will conclude with a conversation about the syrian refugee crisis in what both countries are doing and what the implications are for border security. but before we get started i would like to thank the canadian american business council for making tonight's event possible. i would like to introduce and thank scotty greenwood the executive director. i've known scotty for a very long time and scotty first got to know canada as chief of staff to u.s. ambassador under the clinton administration. and since then she has worked tirelessly and creatively to advance the mutual understanding between the two countries. for as long as i've known her she has been advocating for a state visit so i feel like a tranthree of something to scotty tonight. so thank you for sponsorship

tonight. spin thank you so much. bonjour. hello, everyone. they do so much for coming. thank you politico, the whole game. we are delighted to be part to the parties would you. hello -- t of those 10 in the rm there's lots of stages so please feel free to come u up up and sp front that i see a lot of the obama administration officials in the back. you can be in the front row. this is your week. if the state gives our the super bowl of diplomacy, then this is the pregame show so welcome to the pregame. on behalf of the canadian american business council we are so thrilled to be partnering with politico, thrilled for all of the events and activities that are happening this week. it's not just about style. the state industry but it's also about substance will be watching carefully as i know all of you will do be seen what happens in

the bilateral and in the questions afterwards. we are very excited. i think this might be the first state visit with the hashtag, hashtag pee mjt in d.c. hashtag new agenda. a new agenda. so with that i just want to say thank you on behalf of my colleagues at the canadian american business council. we are really delighted to be. looking forward to a terrific week and back to you. you. >> you can follow the conversation on twitter at hashtag a new agenda. we invite you to tweak questions for the moderate. they will be tracking your questions on the topic of up on stage. without further delay i'd like to welcome olympic those editor susan glasser who will lead the first conversation. [applause] >> good afternoon, everyone and thank you very much, luiza.

i'm delighted that you're all here this afternoon an anti-gay with such a terrific panel. we were getting started already in the back room. for those people who have labored in the vineyards but here's canada policy issues this is like a shocking and amazing moment people are paying attention. and, in fact, send the amy klobuchar has been working on this issue for 10 years as she just pointed out to me and she is the vice chair of the canada-u.s. parliamentary group. were delighted to have her with us today as well as johnny isakson is a columnist for the national post. is a political expert who we would all across the country and came to the last presidential election. we're delighted to have him with us, and the dreck of the school of global affairs at the university of toronto. i can't think of a better group of people. please join me in welcoming them. [applause]

>> as i said i wasn't being facetious. we really had already jumped right into our conversation backstage and i will tell you we have produced a lot of panel discussions in washington. it's our contribution to the gross national product and most don't start backstage. politico right now on the homepage where running an article called justin fever hits washington. and through it if you could predict of all issues which one would suddenly skyrocket to the top of our attention, canada has been one of the worthy but not front page subject for a long time. here comes justin trudeau to the white house and all of a sudden political issuing headlines just in fever. we quote an unnamed probably a good thing for his or her job, white house official in the story saying that the new prime minister of your country is dreamy.

perhaps it's a good contrast to our presidential election or something. senator klobuchar, you have been working on this issue for a long time when it wasn't front-page news in washington. >> even when it wasn't glamorous. >> you just told me there was a candidate cool factor now. >> exactly. i was thinking, for low -- for very long canadians have been somewhat obsessed for president obama so this is the just desserts. i was telling a few years ago, my daughter is one and we'll talk about what she should do with her future. in a moment that was reminiscent of the graduate when, i said canada. she was giving me grief for years but i think our time has finally come. i do think when you think of president obama and the prime minister, they both came in on platforms of change. and they came in at a time when the country wanted to see something different.

that is one thing that's different besides the fact that the president knows his there is a little more gray are now. the one thing that's different as president obama came in at a time of crisis. we were in the worst economic freefall since the depression. and justin trudeau is coming in at a time were at least economy is stable. given him i would say this moment what he can do some things that obama had wished he had done from the beginning because he was the with everything from this team is back on down. so what the prime minister had been talk about of course is invest in cleaner and she and has been able to deliver on that and infrastructure. i think another piece of it is about obama reached out to other countries and used a different approach when he got into office. and i know and am very heartened by the fact that the prime minister is talking about extending candidates reach and upping their game internationally, whether it is peacekeeping or whether it is

doing more with international aid and involvement. i think that's a positive for the u.s. and i see it as being from minnesota where we can see canada from our porch, right? ics this major trading partner that's often gets overlooked. our number one trading partner, and a lot of interest in the possibility or of coordinating, whether it is our passage of goods across the border or was it is our airports, that bridge from windsor to detroit. but also a lot of our manufacturing standards and other things that we can work to form a north american trading bloc that's in a really difficult global economy. i think will help all three of our countries. >> i'm glad you mentioned trade because one of the things interesting it's not just an exciting new leader has come to renew out interest in the atmospheres that there are some

substantive infuse on the table -- issues include the trade deal now been is one of those. on the one in your president obama who has extended a lot of his personal credibility negotiating his tpp and actually you have prime minister trudeau who has yet to officially endorse it. what are the politics of that and why would canada be reluctant to support something? is it because of the change of political administration in canada? >> i think there are couple of things going on. the first is that the trade deal to tpp was negotiated by the previous government and there was a sense in which there have not been a lot of public discussion about it. there was a promise made by the liberals reelection campaign that they would go out and consult. so the trade minister is doing exactly that across the country. and canada has as you know signed the tpp, joined the signing ceremony in new zealand i think there are some issues