your mouth. the food you feed your family. what your children consume. i was very surprised to read this from a scientific study that two thirds of the rainfall samples in mississippi in 2007 and 2008 compared glycogen -- >> debate from earlier today on the food labeling bill, they will resume debate on the measure, live coverage on c-span2. report. the clerk: house message to accompany s. 764, an act to reauthorize and amend the national sea grant college program act, and for other purposes.

inc. you think you do

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: mr. president, i suspect that a quorum call has been nished. if so, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: i appreciate that, the senator from kansas. the senate is not in a quorum call. mr. roberts: mr. president, i rise today, by the way, on national agriculture day, thank you to the farmers and ranchers of america. as the senate considers legislation on an issue that is critically important to our nation's food supply. from our producers in the fields to our consumers in aisles of grocery stores. without senate action, this country will be hit with a wrecking ball, an apt description that will disrupt the entire food chain. we need to act now to pass my amendment, s. 764. now, this is a compromise

approach that provides a permanent solution to the patchwork of biotechnology labeling laws that will soon be -- soon be wreaking havoc on the flow of interstate commerce of agriculture and food products in our nation's marketplace, and that is exactly what this is about, mr. president. let me repeat that. this is about the marketplace. it's not about safety. it's not about health. or nutrition. it's about marketing. science has proven again and again and again that the use of agriculture biotechnology is 100% safe. in fact, the agriculture committee last year heard from three, three federal agencies tasked with regulating agriculture biotechnology. the department of agriculture's animal and plant health inspection service, the environmental protection agency -- yes, the e.p.a. -- and the food and drug administration, the f.d.a. their work is based on sound

science and is the gold standard for policy making, including this policy we are debating today. one of the most important food and agriculture decisions in recent decades. at our hearing, the federal government expert witnesses highlighted the steps their agencies have already taken to ensure that agriculture biotechnology is safe, safe to other plants, safe to the environment and safe to our food supply. it was clear that our regulatory system ensures biotechnology crops are among the most tested in the history of agriculture in any country. at the conclusion of the hearing, virtually all senate agriculture members were in agreement. what happened? when did sound science go out the window? since that hearing, the u.s. government reinforced their decisions on the safety of these products. in november, the f.d.a. took

several steps based on sound science regarding food produced from biotech plants, including issuing final guidance from manufacturers who wish to voluntarily label their products as containing ingredients from biotech or exclusively nonbiotech plants. and more importantly, mr. president, the food and drug administration denied a petition that would have required the mandatory labeling of biotech foods. the f.d.a. stated that the petitioner failed to provide the evidence needed for the agency to put such a requirement in place because there is no health, safety or nutritional difference between biotech crops and their nonbiotech varieties. regardless of some of the rhetoric you have heard on the floor of this senate. thus it is clear that what we are facing today is not a safety or health issue, despite claims

by my colleagues on the senate floor. it is a market issue. this is really about a conversation about a few states dictating to every other state the way food moves from farmers to consumers in the value chain. we have a responsibility to ensure that the national market can work for everyone, including mearms and manufacturers and retailers and, yes, consumers. this patchwork approach of mandates adds cost to national food prices. in fact, requiring changes in the production or labeling of most of the nation's food supply for a single state would impact citizens in our home states. a recent study estimates that the cost to consumers could total as much as -- get this -- $82 billion annually. it will 1,050 for a hardworking

american family. 1,050 if this happens with the vermont law in july. let me repeat that. if we fail to act, the cost to consumers could total as much as $82 billion annually, approximately just over a thousand dollars for hardworking american families. now is not the time for congress to make food more expensive for anybody, not the consumer or the farmer. today's farmers -- today's farmers are being asked to produce more safe and affordable food to meet growing demands at home and around a troubled and very hungry world. at the same time, they are facing increased challenges to production, including limited land and water resources,

uncertain weather patterns and pest and disease issues. agriculture biotechnology has become a valuable tool in ensuring the success of the american farmer in meeting the challenge of increasing their yields in a more efficient, safe and responsible manner. any threat to the technology hurts the entire value chain, from the farmer to the consumer and all involved. now, i also hear -- and i do understand this -- the concern from some of my colleagues about consumers and available information about our food. some consumers want to know more about ingredients. this is a good thing. consumers should take an interest in their food, where it comes from and the farmers and ranchers that also produce their food. i can assure you the most effective tool consumers have to influence our food system or to

know more about food is by voting with their pocketbooks in the grocery stores and supermarkets. this legislation puts forward policies that will help all consumers not only find information but also demand consistent information from food manufacturers. however, it is important, as with any federal action on this topic, for congress to consider scientific fact and unintended consequences. the committee-passed bill created a voluntary national standard for biotechnology labeling claims of food. now, i have heard concerns that a voluntary only standard would not provide consumers with enough information even though there is no health, safety or nutritional concern with this biotechnology, so we worked out a compromise to address these concerns by providing an incentive for the marketplace to provide more information. this legislation will allow the

markets to work. however, if they do not live up to their commitments, if information is not made available to consumers, then this legislation holds the market accountable. under this proposal, a mandatory labeling program would go into effect only, only if a voluntary program does not provide significant information after several years. the marketplace would then have adequate time to adjust and utilize a variety of options, a menu of options to disclose information about ingredients, along with a wealth of other information about the food on the shelves. simply put, the legislation before us provides an immediate comprehensive solution to the unworkable state-by-state patchwork of labeling laws. preemption doesn't extend to state consumer protection laws or anything beyond the wrecking ball that we see related to

biotechnology labeling mandates, and we do ensure that the solution to the state patchwork, the one thing we all agree upon, is effective. it sets national uniformity that allows for the preflow of interstate commerce, a power granted to congress in the u.s. constitution. this labeling to the constitution, this labeling of uniformity is based on science, allows the value chain from farmer to processor to shipper to retailer to consumer to continue as the free market has settled. this ensures uniformity and claims made by manufacturers and will enhance clarity for our consumers. increasingly, many americans have taken an interest in where their food comes from and how it is made. let's keep in mind this is a good thing. we want consumers informed about food and farming practices. at the same time we must also

not demonize food with unnecessary labels. this debate is about more than catchy slogans and made-up names for bills. it's about the role of the federal government to ensure the free flow of commerce, to make decisions based upon sound science, all the while providing opportunity for the market to meet the demands of consumers. now, this isn't the first time, mr. president, this body has addressed this issue. in 2012, in 2013, members of the senate soundly rejected the idea of mandatory labeling for biotechnology. that's right. both times, more than 70 members voted to reject mandatory labeling. this body then stood up for sound science and commonsense, and i trust my colleagues will continue to stand up and defend sound science again. time is of the essence, mr. chairman, for not only agriculture and the food value

chain but also consumers who work together, face the wrecking ball of this patchwork of state-by-state mandates. now, this legislation has the support of more than 650 organizations. mr. president, we have never had 650 organizations contact the agriculture committee about any other bill, any other piece of legislation. morch 650. -- more than 650. large and small, representing the entire food chain, and that number continues to grow every day. that's quite a coalition. and they're here in washington trying to say, look, this is not going to work with regard to state-by-state regulation. as i've said, never before in the agriculture committee have we seen such a coalition of constituents all united, all united behind such effort. their message is clear. it is time for us to act. it is time for us to provide certainty in the marketplace.

i appreciate the bipartisan support of those on the committee who join me by voting to vote out our committee bill. the vote was 14-6. we've made significant changes to address the concerns of others. now we must carry this across the finish line. i urge my colleagues to support this compromise approach and protect the safest, most abundant and affordable food supply in the world. i yield the floor. and upon close inspection, i suggest there is an absence and that we need a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i'd ask the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: mr. president, i rise to speak about a very important issue for the american people, what they feed their families. and here is a photo of a dad, pretty typical photo of a dad

taking his two kids shopping. you can see he's got one toddler there and he's got one infant in the cart. how well i remember doing this with my own kids and then watching my kids with their kids. it's kind of a tradition. so we have a couple of questions we have to ask ourselves when we look at a photo like this. if this dad wants to know what ingredients are in the food that he gives his kids, he should have a right to know that. that's my deep belief. he has a right to know that. just as they do in so many countries all over the world. and the bill that's going to come before us called the safe and accurate food labeling act, is anything but that. i would call it the nonlabel act. it's a nonlabel. there is no label required.

it's a totally voluntary system. it's a no-label label. even if somebody in three years did what senator roberts explains, you still would not have a true label. i think it's an embarrassment. i think it's an insult to consumers, and it's a sham. the goal of the bill -- and i hope we vote it down -- is to hide the information from consumers. it is going to make it harder, not easier for consumers to know if they're feeding their families genetically modified organisms, g.m.o.'s. so here again is our typical dad, and he's got his kids in the cart. they're shopping. they have had their outing. and he picks up a product, he wants to see the ingredients, including whether it's been genetically modified. and guess what?

there is no g.m.o. label. so what are his options? well, in three years maybe he'll have an option, and the option is going to make it literally impossible for him to know what's in his food because it's either going to be a bar code so he'll have to have a smartphone. and even when he puts the smartphone up against the code, they don't really have to tell you easily whether it's g.m.o. it's going to have a whole bunch of other information. or he's going to have to call a 1-800 number. can you believe this? the man is going through the grocery store, he's got 50 products in his cart. he's going wait a minute, kids. just a minute. have some, have some chips. and he calls 1-800, and he tries to find out, and he gets probably some person answering him in india, which is usually what you get. and you go around the mulberry

bush. how embarrassing this? now if he's lucky, he gets products from companies that really are being fair about this, like campbell's soup. they're doing a real smart, voluntary label. it says partially produced with genetic engineering. for information, visit -- and they have a dot-com site. so campbell -- if he's lucky that he has enough products in there that has a label, he may find out more information. but it's totally voluntary. it's totally voluntary. but i want to say thank you to campbell's for being up front and putting the information right on the label. look, as a mom, as a grandma, i want to know what's in the food. and because of work we've done before, you do have to list how much sugar, which is so vit cal as we -- which is so critical as

we combat diabetes and other things. sometimes you read that sugar content and you think, oh my god, i want to get something else. you can see how many carb, how much fat. why can't you see if the product is genetically modified? it seems to me it's fair. while i call the roberts proposal the non-label label because it makes believe you're going to have a label, but there's no label, the groups, the consumer groups call it the dark act. the dark act. because the label is voluntary. there's not going to be one. at least for three years. and then after that, they'll figure out another way to put it off indefinitely. so, information, even if we move out three years and they decide they have to make something mandatory, information will be hidden behind web sites or phone numbers or these q.r. codes that

are so problematic. so this busy dad that we have here, he's going to have to stop shopping for every item on his list. he'd have to pull out his phone. he'd have to make a call or go to a web site or scan a bar code. you don't have to live too long to know this is not going to happen. this dad is so not going to do that barks lease got two -- do that because he's got two kids, by now they're screaming get me out of here, i'm hungry, and where's mommy. all this notion that this dad is going to deal with all of this, i don't care how much of a super dad you are, you're not going to make 50 phone calls to 1-800 numbers, you're not going to look at 50 bar codes and find out whether the product has g.m.o. you're just not going to do it. it's not going to happen. the kids are going to be melting down. and even if he doesn't have kids

with him, he's got other things to do, by the way, like live his life outside a super market. he's going to want to get back home or he's going to want to get back to work. it makes no sense at all. and, by the way, this dad -- and i'd ask the senator, senator reid to take a look at it to see if it doesn't remind him of one of his kids taking his grandkids. this dad is going to be reminded if he has 50 products and wants to check it out, he's either going to have to have a smartphone, put it up against a bar code -- mr. reid: or he can call a 1-800 number. mrs. boxer: or he can call a 1-800 number, and we all know what happens then. he'll be transferred around the world. americans should not have to run through hoops. life is difficult enough already not to have to. so this thing is a sham. it's an insult. it's a joke. and why are they doing it on the

other side of the aisle? because they're beholden to the special interests who don't want to label g.m.o.'s, who are afraid if people know that the food is genetically modified, they won't buy it, even though there is no proof of that at all. 64 countries require labels. do you have the list? and 64 countries today require simple labels. and many of our products are sold in those 64 countries. let me tell you some of these countries. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to place in the record the 64 countries that require g.m.o. labeling. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: and i'm going to name some of these countries that require the label. so, in other words, our companies have got to put the label on if they want to sell, letting people know if their food is genetically modified. australia, austria, belgium,

bolivia, brazil, bulgaria, china, croatia, cypress, denmark, el salvador, estonia, finland, france, germany, greece, hungary, ireland, italy, japan, jordan, kenya, latvia, mali, mall at sphshes -- malta, saudi arabia, senegal, slovakia, south africa, south korea, spain, sri lanka, switzerland, taiwan, thailand, turkey, ukraine, united kingdom, vietnam. i left some out but they'll be in the record if anyone wants to see them. why is it that consumers in russia have more information than our consumers, the greatest country in the world? this makes no sense at all. why is it that our companies are up in arms if they have to put the label on in these other

countries, they could put the label on here. now, if we care at all about what the public thinks, we should vote "no" on the roberts bill. 90% of americans want to know if the food they buy has been genetically engineered. 90%. that's a majority of republicans. that's a majority of democrats. that's a majority of independents. i think the other 10% are working for the big food companies who don't seem to want to share this. millions of americans have filed comments with the f.d.a. urging the agency to label genetically engineered food so they can have this information at their finger tips. the bill also preempts any state, any state in the union from doing a label. now, i don't like the notion of every state doing a label.

that's why i support my bill which has about, i forget how many sponsors do we have. 14 sponsors that simply says to the f.d.a., write a label and make this the law. or the merkley bill that comes up with four labels. senator merkley will talk about this. and we say that would in fact be enough so that states wouldn't be able to act. but meanwhile, this says no state action, and we're going to keep the status quo for at least three years, no labeling. and even after that three years, there's no labeling at all. it's going to be bar codes which are confusing and 1-800 numbers which probably take you to india and you try to figure your way through it all. now, i have long believed in the power to give consumers information. i think you're all familiar with the dolphin safe tuna labeling law. i'm proud to say that i wrote

that law. and that law has been in effect since the 1990's and people like it because guess what? they see a smiling dolphin on the tiew fla -- tuna can, they know that tuna was caught in a way that does not harm the dolphin because when we found out so many years ago that the tuna schools swim under the dolphin and the tuna companies were purse seining on doll p fins, put him away and the dolphin would die by the tens of thousands. so the schoolkids in those years said -- at that time i was a house member, congresswoman boxer, we don't want to have tuna that resulted in the death of all these dolphins. so we created the label. the tuna companies were very helpful, just like campbell's soup has been very helpful in labeling their can with g.e.'s. when you have the companies come forward, it's very helpful.

and so we passed the bill. everybody said oh, it's going to be terrible. no one will buy tuna. actually people started buying the tuna because they changed the way they fish for the tuna. the dolphin were unharmed. we have saved literally hundreds of thousands of dolphins over the period of time that that label has been in effect. now, this label, all we're saying is let us know. let us know. what we do know is that many of these genetically engineered products, as they are growing in the ground, they have to -- they require future amount of pesticides. senator heinrich talked about that, that that's one issue that has grown in importance to parents because they don't want to give their kids food that was covered in pesticides, if they

have an option, if they have an option. so the power that we give the consumers is critical. the power to know, simply know the truth. and to me, knowledge is power. to me, it's respect. you tell people the truth. you don't give them a sham bill and say well, we won't do anything for three years, but then we'll have a bar code and then we'll have a 1-800-number. no. pretty simple. require a label. require a label. a label is simple. a label works. and senator merkley, i see you're on the floor, and i'm finishing up. we have various ways we can do the label. one way is give it to the f.d.a. and tell them to come up with it. another way is the way senator merkley has proceeded in a way to attract more support. he's given four options, all of which are very good. and all of which would immediately give you the information that you need.

now, in 2000 when i introduced the first senate labeling of g.e. foods, my legislation had one supporter, and it was me. i had no other supporters back then. it was so long ago, 2000. now 14 senators are cosponsoring the bill, and i am so proud to cosponsor senator merkley's bill, the biotechnology food labeling and uniformity act, which again will put forward four options for companies. so there are reasons that people want this information and not one of us we are should decry or could decry what our people want. they want to know if the foods contain g.m.o.'s because of the prevalence of herbicide-resistant crops. we know from the usga that growers spray 280 million pounds of roundup in 2012, a pound of herbicide for every person in

the country. that's what they spray on these foods that contain gmo's. and whatever the reason, americans deserve to know what's in the food they're eating. some want to know it just to have the information, just to have the information. now, some in the food and chemistry say adding this very small piece of information would confuse or alarm consumers. this is an old and familiar argument raised by virtually every industry when they want to avoid giving consumers basic facts. in fact, a 2014 study from the journal "food policy" shows there is little evidence that mandatory labeling of g.e. foods signaled consumers to avoid the products. there is no proof of that. the f.d.a. requires the labeling of more than 3,000 ingredients, additives and processes. orange juice from concentrate must be labeled.

consumers should be able to choose the product they prefer. if they like it from concentrate, fine. if they prefer it in a different fashion, fine. there is no reason they can't also require -- they can't also have the knowledge that the food they're buying is j.e., genetically engineered. the world certainly has moved ahead of us. the roberts bill would take us way back into the dark, and that's why consumer groups call it the dark act. it's a sham. it's an embarrassment. it's time for us to shelf the dark act, to listen to 90% of the american people. for god's sakes, if we do nothing else, we ought to listen to 90% of the american people, and we ought to pass a real bill to help americans make informed choices about the foods they eat. and again, i want to thank senator merkley for really veflg into this issue and coming up

with another throrn that would be very acceptable, and not only to me but to, i believe, the 90% of the people who were just crying out for this information, and i would yield the floor. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: this debate over the monsanto dark act which gives americans the right to know centers around two basic propositions. the first proposition is that it would be chaotic to have 50 states with 50 different labeling standards. how could a food company possibly always get the right

label to the right store if there are 50 different state standards? now, this is not a problem we actually have yet because we have no states that have adopted a standard for g.e. labeling. we have one state -- i should say no states that have implemented it. one state that has adopted a standard, and that won't be implemented until july. so we're far away from having any issue over conflicting standards. but i acknowledge the basic point. this makes sense. it makes sense that you don't want to have a world in which every state has a different approach. in this state, you do x., y., z. in this state, you do a., b., c. what the exemptions are differ, the format differs and so forth. so let's just concede this point that it makes sense to have a single standard for the country. but a single standard about what, which brings us to the second basic proposition, and that is that there be a consumer

-friendly alert that there are g.e. ingredients in a product. that's all. if a state says we want to have a simple consumer-friendly alert that there are g.e. ingredients, then they should be able to do that, but if we don't want 50 standards, then we need to have the replacement be a national standard that provides the same thing, that is a consumer-friendly alert that there are g.e. ingredients. then the individual can do more investigation, they can go to the company's web site, find out the details, what type of genetic engineering is it, what is it its impact, so on and so forth. but right now there's a coalition of individuals in this chamber who don't believe in americans' right to know.

they want to take it away. they want to support a bill which is currently on the floor right now that deny americans the right to know because they're getting pressure from montana -- monsanto and friends, and they aren't willing to stand up for the american citizen, their constituents. they don't believe in a we, the people. they believe in we the titans who are here simply on the end of a puppet string. but we are not here for that purpose. that is not the vision of our constitution. the vision of our constitution is we are of the people, for the people, by the people world. that's what makes america beautiful. not that a few powerful groups can control what happens here in this chamber, this honored and revered chamber where it's our responsibility to hold up our we the people vision of the constitution. well, so this bill, this

monsanto deny americans right to know act 2.0, has a few shams and scams placed in it to pretend that it is a labeling law. now, the first scam that it has in it or sham is an 800 number. okay. now, i as a consumer can go to a grocery shelf, and in five seconds i can check three products for an ingredient by looking at the label. one second, two seconds, three seconds. less than five seconds. in three seconds, i can check and see whatever i want to find out. did i want to check the calorie count, did i want to check for vitamin a, did i want to see what percent of the daily recommended amount was in there, did i want to see if it contained peanuts because i'm allergic to peanuts. i can do it for three products in three seconds. that's consumer friendly. that's why we put it on the

label. that is why we say oh, gosh, we are going to give people the information they want so they can exercise their freedom. when they buy things to support what they want. that's integrity between the producers and the consumer. you know the opposite of integrity? that's the dark act. deny americans right to know, ban states from providing this basic information. it's the complete absence of responsibility to the citizen. well, this 1-800-number, how would this work? oh, well, i first of all have got to find the 800 number. then i have got to make sure i have a phone with me. then i have got to make sure i have good cell phone coverage. then i have got to go to a phone tree. you know how these work. you go to the phone tree, you

listen to eight options, you pick the option, it takes you to another list. you pick another option. and then finally after about five levels, they connect you, they say if you want an operator, press this and you press it, and you go to some call center in the philippines. and they don't know what you're talking about. this is not consumer friendly. the ingredients is one second. it's ten minutes or more. maybe when you call that 800 number, you get a message, i'm sorry, we have a really large call volume right now and we will be able to answer your call in 20 minutes. that is not consumer information. that is a scam and a sham, and it's not the only one that's in this dark bill. the second sham is this idea of a quick response code like this. this square code. and to get information as a consumer, you can't look at the

ingredients and see the answer or the g.e. ingredients. no, you have to have not just a phone, you have to have a smartphone. you have to be able to pull out your smartphone, hope you have a battery. it has to have a photo appliance with it. you have to take a picture of that code. and then that code takes you to some web site written by the very producer that gives you the answer, maybe, or maybe they lay out a whole architecture of stuff that is just -- that just obvious indicates it, -- that have you object few indicates it, that doesn't show you on the package whether there are g.e. ingredients. again, how long does that take for a product? 30 minutes for the first item on your shopping list as you compare three products? that's not consumer friendly. that's just the first item on your shopping list. there is not jun person in this

chamber that truly believes that this is a fair substitute for consumer-friendly information. this is sham and scam number two. now, if this q.r. code had a message on it and this message right here written on the back said oh, there are g.e. ingredients for details, scan this code. okay. that then is -- that's all the consumer wants to know. that's all we're asking for, consumer-friendly alert. then that q.r. code for more information is fine, that's perfectly fine. but without it, nobody even knows why the hell it's there. what's it there for? is this where you find out information about the company? is this where you find out information about the new products they are going to be putting out? is this where you find information about special sales that are going on? nobody has any idea. well, the dark code doesn't stop

with sham number one and sham number two. no, it gives you even more fake labeling, because you see that says that a form of labeling is to have no label but to put that up on your web site. that doesn't call that a label. it's just simply a misrepresentation, and misrepresentation is a fancy word for a lie. because there is not any information that even appears on the product, none. and so you go well, i was told there could be an 800 number. i'm not finding it. i was told there might be a box. i think it's for finding out if there are g.e. ingredients. i don't find that computer box, no, because they have adopted the producer door number three, and door number three is to put something on some form of social media. but what social media? are you supposed to go to

instagram? are you supposed to go to facebook? are you supposed to go to twitter? nobody has any idea. so now there is nothing, nothing, let me repeat, nothing on the product. so what could be learned in one second by a consumer, now the consumer has fully no idea. and because this whole thing is voluntary, lots of products may just choose to put nothing up. now, the proponents of the dark act say no, no, no, we have a pathway to more information if companies don't put up information in the form of a barcode or a phone number or something on a social media website, well then we will require something on one of those three areas. but you see what? that requirement don't the road still provides no consumer friendly information. so it's a pathway through a hall of mirrors that leads to a hall of mirrors. it never leads to concrete,

simple information. don't you know that if you told consumers they had to go to a web side to find out if there's vitamin d in the product you'd say it's ridiculous. it should just be printed on the package. don't we all know that if somebody is interested in high fructose corn syrup and they were told they had to dial a call in the philippines to find out information, our consumers would say that's absurd. we all know that's the case. 90% of americans strongly believe or believe when given the choice that there should be this information directly on the label. 90%. okay, i'm rounding up from # 9%. let's round it off. nine out of ten americans when questioned whether there should be information on the label to say whether there are genetically engineered ingredients say yes, there should be. and more than 70% say they feel

very strongly about this. so here ever our -- so here are our constituents. 9-1 they want us to provide the information, but up here on capitol hill, we have senator after senator after senator who does not care what their constituents think. they only care what big monsanto and friends want, which is to deny americans the right to know. and that's irresponsible. and that's wrong. now, when we look at this number, you can see by how high it is that this is not partisan because it would be impossible to have a big difference, a hundred percent of one party and 80% of another might round off to 90%. okay. but that's not the way it is. basically whether you're independent or you're a democrat or you're a republican, in all three groups nine out of ten individuals, plus or minus a few

percentage points, say they want this information on the package. so here we are with this vast difference in ideologies being displayed by the presidential debate, from the tea party left -- or the right to the far left and everything in between, disagreement, all kinds of things. but on this, all the citizens agree. the left, the right, the middle, the far left, the far right because it's a fundamental freedom in america to use your dollars based on basic information, accurate information. that's a basic freedom that a bunch of senators here on this floor want to take away and it is just wrong. and to take away the states' rights to answer that request, that need, that desire for information on g.e. ingredients and to not replace it with a

national standard, that is just wrong. now, there are folks who say wait, i want to be on the side of science. i don't think there's any kind of scientific information that there's any kind of disadvantages to g.e. products. well, that is fundamentally wrong. if you think there are no disadvantages because you don't want to know, there are benefits and there are disadvantages. let's, for example, recognize that this tool can be used in ways that produce some good results and some not so good results. that's why it's up to the consumer to decide how they want to use their dollars. on the good side, we can talk about golden rice. there's parts of the world that primarily eat rice but they have a vitamin a deficiency and so they have rice now that they can grow that has been genetically modified to provide more vitamin a and makes for a healthier

community. that's a positive. or let's take, for example, sweet potatoes grown in south africa that are vulnerable to certain basic viruses but they've been genetically modified to resist those viruses so that there is more substan tif food available to the community and as far as we know, no particular side effects so that is a positive. there's even some interesting ideas of things that occur about edible vaccine technology. well, this is an alternative to traditional vaccines. and they're working to have transgenic plants used for the production of vaccines that stimulate the human body's natural immune response. well, wouldn't that be amazing if we could essentially inoculate against major diseases in the world through some type

of g.e. as long as there weren't side effects? well, so who knows. that may end up being a major benefit. but just as there are scientifically documented positives, there are scientifically documented negatives. for example, let's talk about our waterways. we have a tremendous -- first let's look at the chart for change in gli glyphosate. i want to show since the introduction of herbicide resistant crops the amount of herbicides put on crops in america has soared. we've gone from 7.4 million pounds in 1994 to 160 million pounds by 2012. it's gone up since. well, all of that glyphosate is basically being sprayed multiple times a year. it gets into the air. it gets into the plants.

it gets into their runoff from the fields. it goes into our waterways and it has an impact because it is a plant killer. that's what an herbicide is. it kills plants. so if you put millions of pounds of herbicide into our rivers, it does a lot of damage. now, i won't go through all the studies that have noted this damage. let me just explain that when you kill the things at the base of the food chain, you change the entire food chain. this is true for mike crow organism -- my crow organisms in sea water or marine systems and it's very true in microorganisms in fresh water systems. microorganisms form the basis of the food chain and provide important ecological services. and there's a bunch of studies that show the impact of all this plant killing herbicide running into our rivers.

well, it affects the soil, too. and quite frankly it even creates some potential for an impact on human health. now, let me explain here. two-thirds of the air and rainfall samples tested in mississippi and iowa in 2007 and 2008 contain glyphosate. that's rain samples and that's air samples. two-thirds of the samples contained this herbicide. well, what we know is that not only do humans absorb some, therefore, but they also absorb some because of residuals in the food. a study published in the journal of environmental and analytical toxicology found that humans who consume glyphosate treated g.m.o. foods have relatively high levels of glies state in their -- glyphosate in their urine because it's in their body and we also know that glyphosate

has been classified as a probable human carcinogen by the international agency for research on cancer, part of the world health organization. here we have a probable carcinogen, present in such vast quantys, present in the rain, present in the air, present in residuals on the food. that's a legitimate concern to citizens. now, does that mean that it's causing rampant outbreaks of cancer? no, i'm not claiming that. i'm just saying there's a legitimate foundation for individual citizens to say i'm concerned about the runoff into our streams. i'm concerned about the heavy application and its impact on local plants and animals. i'm concerned about the possibility of absorption of anything that might contribute to cancer. that's the extension's freedom to have those opinions. this is not a situation where

members of this body should say we are smarter than they are and we don't care that they have scientific concerns because quite frankly we want to suppress that information. we don't want to give them a choice. we don't want to let them know and it's just wrong. and it's wrong to take away states' rights to provide such basic information and not have a consumer friendly version at a national level. i will absolutely support a 50-state standard so there is no confusion and no cost of overlapping standards or difficulties in what food goes from what warehouse to what grocery store. absolutely, absolutely support that. but don't strip states from doing something nine out of ten americans care about and then proceed to bury that. and not provide that information here in the u.s. senate.

so i encourage my colleagues simply say no to this monsanto, deny americans' right to know. simply say no. and stand up. have some respect for this institution. this is a bill that never went through committee, not a single phrase from this bill went through committee. this is a new creation put on the floor without consideration in committee. and then no open amendment process. how many colleagues across the aisle cried foul over the past years when democrats were in charge, they didn't allow an amendment process and they insisted they would never vote for cloture unless there was a full amendment process that honored the ideas presented by different senators. but no open amendment process here. so there we are, bad process,

meeting ga influence by mon san -- mega influence by monsanto and friends, oppressing and stripping the freedom of american citizens. let's not let that happen. i have a host of letters i was planning to read but i see my colleague from ohio is wanting to speak to the issue and in fairness to all sides of this debate or ideas that he might want to present, i'm going to stop here and if there's an opening later, i'd like to return to the floor because my phone calls and my letters overwhelmingly from citizens say they resent the senators in this body trying to strip them of their right to know. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. a senator: mr. president, i want to thank my colleague from oregon. i'm sure he'll be back on the floor again to talk about this issue.

i want to address a couple of issues quickly. one is the last act that this senate took last week which was passage of the comprehensive addiction and recovery act. mr. portman: i didn't have a chance to speak on it because the senate adjourned at that point but i want to congratulate my colleagues for coming together as republicans and democrats. it was a vote i think of 94-1. that never happens around this place and it was because people understand the significance of the challenge of heroin and prescription drug abuse and addiction back in our states and wanted to stand up and put forward federal legislation that will help make the federal government a better partner with state and local government, with the nonprofits who are out there in the trenches doing their best with law enforcement who are trying their darndest. others who are in the emergency medical response community who are trying to deal with this issue. i got to tell you i was just traveling the state of ohio the last three days and i ha erd about it constantly. before i gave a speech people would come up and say thank you for dealing with this issue because my daughter or my cousin or my friend is affected. today i was with a group of

young people talking about other issues and one of them came up to me afterwards and said his cousin at 23 years old had just succumbed to an overdose, died of an overdose of heroin. so this is a problem in all a of our states. it's a problem where we can help make a difference and i want to congratulate my colleagues for working with me, senator whitehouse and others to put this bill forward. we worked on it over three years in a comprehensive way using the best expertise from around the country. and now i'm urging my colleagues in the house of representatives to follow suit. let's pass this legislation. let's send it to the president to his desk for signature. let's get this bill working to be able to help our constituents all over this country to better deal with a very real epidemic in our communities. now the number one cause of death in my state is overdoses from these deaths that are occurring from overdoses of heroin and prescription drugs. so i again congratulate the senate for acting on that in a bipartisan basis, having

thoughtful legislation that's going to make a difference. i'd also, mr. president, like to rise today about something that also affects our young people which is literacy and learning. this happens to be read aloud month. it's a month that this united states senate has established, march being the month when he hold up those who read aloud to their kids because we found it's incredibly important for a child's development, particularly for the ability of a child to become adept at other subjects in school through just being read to. the literacy that results from that. there's a campaign called the read aloud campaign. i want to congratulate them for the good work they do around the country. they started in my hometown of cincinnati, ohio so i'm proud of them but now it's a national effort. at library -- at libraries and schools march is held up as read aloud month where we encourage to get into the habit of reading to their children, if only for 15 minutes a day. that's all the read aloud

campaign is asking for. if parents or caregivers read to kids that are at least is a minutes a day. there is a study that shows on average by the time a child born into poverty reaches age three, he or she will have heard 30 million fewer words than his or her peers who are not in poverty. what does that mean? 30 million fewer words? it means that those children born into poverty are at a severe disadvantage. it means that they can have a lifetime of consequences that are negative for them. the morewe learn about the way the brain develops, it means that verbal skills develop as they are used and atrophy as they are not. reading to children particularly younger children is incredibly foreign their development. even though this information is now out there and again the read aloud campaign has done a great

job of getting the information out there, we're told that in 040% of families in america, even with all this information, other care give remembers not reading to their kids. there is a dr. at the cincinnati hospital who is a real expert in this topic thsm doctor has stated, the more you treed your child, the more you help the neurons to grow and kefnlgt that's the physiological change that occurs. a child's vow cab library is also reflective of the vo vocabulary they hear at home. there is a 2003 study studying the impact of this 30 million word gap we talked about between households in poverty and those of their peers. by age 3, the effects were already apparent. even that the that young age, trends in the amount of talk and interaction clearly suggested widening gaps to come. that's another study out there about what the impact of this

is. there are a lot of adult whose might not know house important it is. but again, 15 minute days is all they're asking. it adds up quickly and can help close this word gap. maybe the most important single thing we can do to help our children be able to learn. but literacy or even functional literacy -- so not being illiterate but not being able to read with proficiency -- makes it harder to earning a living and go a job. it hurts self-esteem, personal autonomy. millions of our friends and neighbors are struggling with these consequences every single day. according to the department of education, there are about 32 million adults in the united states who can't read. 32 million. nearly one out of every five adults reads below a fifth-grade level. one out of every five high school graduates not being able to read. this is an embarrass many.

-- an embarrassment for us as a country. our families can help to get these kids off to the right start. for these adults who are functionally illiterate or illiterate, they all started off with this disadvantage we're talking about not having this opportunity at home. some parents may say, okay, rob, how do we afford this? because children's books aren't inexpensive. how do you get the online resources you might want to get? get a library card. our libraries in ohio and around the country are all into this effort. they've all rallied behind it and they're all eager to be a part of it. jane and i -- my wife jane and i made it a priority to read to our kids growing up. a lot of that came from books we took out of the county libraries. it had the consequence of introducing our kids to the libraries and helping them become lifelong rears and learners. that's one way for those wondering how doou start this thing. go to the library and get

started there. i'm proud that ohio has led the way. this campaign began in cincinnati and is now become ago national movement. we do talk a lot had this body about education and we recently passed legislation that had to do with k-12 education reform on a bipartisan basis. i think it was an important step. one thing it did is it returned more power back to the states and to our families, which i think is a good thing. the new law introduced new grants for early childhood education programs. it made sure those grants are prioritized for areas with disproportionate numbers of low-income families. we also authorized professional development opportunities for teachers, literacy coaches and specialists and english as a second language specialists. these grants will be helpful in empowering our teachers to do their part to learn to read and clearly our wonderful teachers have a role to play. but to my colleagues, while this is all fine, there is no

substitute for the family. there is no substitute for what can happen in a family before the child even goes to school and then while the child is starting school to be able to give that child the advantage of being able to learn more easily. so although i supported that legislation, there's some good things in there, let's not forget the fundamental role all of us play. washington, by the way, may be the only place on earth where 30 million words -- which is this word gap we talked about, which is less than the lengths of our tax code in regulations -- the only plays in the world where it doesn't sound like a lot, 30 million words. but it is a lot. and there's no government substitute to close that 30-million word gap. ultimately it will be closed by parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, other caregivers, with the help of librarians and teachers and others. we need to call attention to this to let parents know that this 15 minutes a day can make a

huge dinks. you're giving him or her an educational advantage. you're helping instill a love of learning. i want to thank the read aloud campaign. i am proud of their roots in my hometown and in ohio. i want to thank them for what they're doing for our kids and fiewmp. with that, i yield back, mr. president. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: constitution, mr. president. i wanted to continue sharing some information about the monsanto deny americans the right to know act that is on the a senate floor being debated right now. the and the reason i want to return to this is that this is such an egregious overreach of the federal government stripping states of the right to respond to their citizens' desire for clear information, consumer

friendly information on g.e. -- genetically engineered -- ingredients and stripping american citizens of the right to know. now, i've already gone through a number of the points that are important in this debate, that if you're going to eliminate the ability of states to provide a consumer friendly information on their label -- which can be as simple as a tiny symbol or a letter like brazil us uses -- then there has to be a national standard that provides consumer friendly information. and that certainly the halomeres embedded in the dark act which says that consumers need to call into call centers and maybe they'll get an answer or they have to own a smartphone and

give up some of their privacy in the process to try to find out this information, or that they have to guess where the company has posted in social media some information about the ingredients that they have in their product, those three sets of components are completely unworkable. 100% unworkable. ask yourself if that would be a logical remedy to people trying to find out about the cal race - about the calories in a product. instead of finding out in one second, it could take them 10 minutes or for that matter an hour. or they may not get an answer from the call center because the call center is too busy. here is the point. nine out of ten americans believe that this information should be easily available on the label.

now, i went through those numbers before, that the numbers are basically the same for republicans, basically the same for democrats and independents, slight ve variations. so here is something. throughout the ideological spectrum that american citizens agree on. and along comes monsanto dark act, and its proponents to say that we don't care that the american people have finally found something to agree on that goes to their core values about the right to know. we're going to stomp out their right to know because we simply don't work for the american people. we don't work for our constituents. we work for some powerful special interests. well, that is wrong. and i hope the american citizens will let their senators know that it is wrong. they're certainly letting me know how they feel, and i thought i would share some of that with you. but before i do that, i had some

inquiries about this situation of basically all citizens throughout the ideological spectrum sharing the same point of view. nine out of ten. okay, is it also true for gender and age? so let me share that. and, specifically, by the way, there was a follow-up question which said, does a bar code -- does that work to provide information on the label or do you want a physical label stating that there are g.e. ingredients? physical label versus this bar code, which people don't even know why it is on the package. well it turns out again, it's 90%. itsit's 88% of democrats and 80f republicans, and 90% of independents say, no, we want the physical label, not some

mysterious bar code that we have to use our smartphone to interpret and give up some of our privacy. well, how about men and women. 87% of men, 90% of women. how about younger and older? those who are less than 50 years old, 86%. those who are over 50 years old, 90%. again, basically nine out of ten americans, regardless of gender, regardless of age, regardless of ideology, say, no, this is a fundamental issue of american freedom, my freedom to exercise my choices based on basic information that should be on the label. well, let's turn to some real constituents and some real letters so we're not just talking numbers. bertha from springfield writes to me, "i urge you to vote against the bill concerning labeling of foods that contain

g.m.o.'s. every american has the right to know what they are putting in their bodies. you were elected to represent oregonians and protect our rights. be assured, i will check your vote and every other representatives' record before i cast my votes in the future." well, let's turn to eli from medford, oregon. i want to hear you come out publicly goence this bill. "please lead the fight to get g.m.o.'s clearly labeled without delay." well, eli, that's exactly what i am doing. i hadn't read your letter before i started speaking out strongly because i fundamentally believe that we are here to represent our citizens, not to bow down to special interests. and this is as clear as it gets. this is as straight and forward as it could possibly be. well, let's turn to ms. j.c. in salem, oregon. "please, i am requesting you not

to support the dark act when this comes up for a vote in the senate. i know the senate agricultural committee voted to pass the dark act last week. i believe the government should protect our right to know what's in our food. please do not vote to block g.m.o. labeling." hey goes on, "most european nations do not allow these types of food to be grown or sold in their country. this should give you some information about how other people view these foods. please do not support this legislation. your constituents will appreciate your support for their right to know what's in the food we put on our plates to feed to our families." you know, that's a pretty personal issue, what you're putting in your mouth, what you are putting in your families -- putting on your family's table for our partner and your children. that's a pretty powerful issue,

and here we have senators who do not care and want to take away that right on something so close to people's hearts. let's turn to sheila in pendleton, oregon. i search senator merkley to vote against the dark act which would block mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. i urge the senator to stand up for states' rights and individuals' right to know. we have a right to know what is in our food so we can make educated decisions about the food we eat. she continues, the free market can only work when consumers have the information they need to make informed choices. and then she says, "contrary to what you hear, g.m.o. food labeling will not increase food prices. companies frequently change labels for all sorts of reasons without passing those costs on to consumers."

so let me dwell on that point for a moment. it is completely reasonable not to have 50 different state standards that are conflicting, but what is unreasonable is to say that putting simple information on the label, consumer friendly information costs a dime, because that label is printed at the same cost whether or not it includes a symbol that says this food contains g.e. ingredients. it doesn't cost any more to print the calories on the label. doesn't cost any more to print the vitamin d content and doesn't cost any more to print a symbol or a phrase or an asterisk indicating there are g.e. ingredients. so let's just be through with that argument that somehow there's a cost issue. ronald from medford writes, "opposes antig.m.o. labeling bill allow states to enact their own laws."

and that's a point. states' rights. i hear all the time from colleagues here on this floor about states' rights, that the federal government should treat states as a laboratory to experiment with ideas, to see if they work, to perfect ideas that might be considered for national adoption. and isn't that exactly what vermont is, a state laboratory that is implementin implementinn july 1 and we could all watch and see whether it works? on july 1 there's no conflicting state standards because there's only one state involved. it's vermont. so you don't have to have confusing labels going from different ware howtions to -- warehouses to different states because it's one state putting forward a standard. so it's an opportunity for us to view that as a laboratory and see how it works.

and other states might want to copy if it works well or they might want a different version. and then the senate could say, you know what? now we have conflicting state standards. and let's address the core issue which is a consumer friendly indication on the package and get rid of the conflicting state standards. that would be a fair and appropriate role for this senate to play. but to crush the only state laboratory that's about to come into existence next change for nothing but a hall of mirrors that does not give any reasonable opportunity for the consumer as a shopper to find out the information they need,s information they can get in one second by looking on the label would instead take ten minutes or 30 minutes or may not even be able to get it at all while you're standing there in the grocery store looking at your very first product on your list.

joshua of eugene says, "please support the public's write to know what food has g.m.o. in it. please work to defeat the dark act. i fully support the public's right to know where food come from, the country of origin as well as nutritional content that is on all food eaten in restaurants." so he's suggesting we should expand this conversation to restaurants. for now let's just talk about packaged food, but he's also commenting on country of origin. i want to live in a nation where if i choose to buy the produce grown in america, i get to buy the produce grown in america. i want to live in a nation that if i choose to buy the meat raised in america and support american ranchers, i get to

support american ranchers. it may simply be because i want to help out my fellow countrymen. it may be because i think they make a superior produce or superior product or type of meat. it may just be patriotism. but that should be my right to know where that food is grown. and we have a law, country of origin labeling that does exactly that because consumers want to know. it isn't about what's safe to put in your mouth. it's about where was the food grown. now, it so happens we're part of a trade agreement, the world trade organization which says that our labeling of where pork and beef are grown is a trade impediment. i couldn't disagree more. and we've lost case after case

in the w.t.o. over this topic. and finally we had to take country of origin labeling off of our beef and off of our pork. we haven't had to take it off our other meats, other produce. and i hope we get to the point we can restore fully our country of origin labeling because it matters to americans. what kind of country are we when we don't even have the right to buy our fellow citizens' produce, our fellow citizens' meat? talk about stripping away freedom but here comes a group of senators on this floor who want to further strip the rights of consumers. no wonder american citizens are angry with their government. no wonder that they are angry specifically with congress, that they rate us favorably below

10%. no wonder they are cynical because of things like this where we ignore the fundamental desires of citizens and instead cave in to a powerful special interest. that's not the way it's supposed to be in the united states of america. now terry of lake os week go writes, g.m.o. food is information we need to have. i need the right to decide what to eat and feed my family. if the food industry wants to produce foods without meeting certain standards using whatever they want to make their product, sell foods to us, what protection do we have? do we really know the long-term effects of altered ingredients? " well, terry, no, we don't know all the effects but we do know that there's a series of

potential benefits and a series of problems. those problems are the massive runoff of herbicide which is a name for plant killing chemical. massive runoff of plant killing chemicals into our streams and there are plants in our streams. they're algae. they're microorganisms and they're the fundamental base of the food chain and it makes a difference president and -- makes a difference. and we do know the herbicide is classified as a potential human carcinogen by the world health organization and we do know that those who eat g.m.o. food end up with more glyphosate, that is herbicide in their body. but it's up to you, terry, to decide whether you have concerns about this. you should get to decide. no senator should come to this floor, terry, and say i know better. i want to strip your ability to make a decision because i just

know everything and you know what? i don't care about the scientific research. i just want to serve these powerful ag companies that don't want you to know. so too bad, terry, and too bad to your 90% of americans, 90% of democrats, 90% of republicans, 90% of independents, 90% of women, 90% of men -- i'm rounding off but pretty close. 90% of the young. too bad for all of that because senators here want to deny you the information on which to make the decision that you're asking for. now gail of portland, oregon, says, please do all you can to defeat this bill. it's my understanding of this bill it would be illegal for states to require g.m.o. labeling, even though polls show that 93% of americans support labeling efforts. well, gail, i don't have the

poll that says 93% of americans support labeling, but i do have this poll done in november 2015 by a reputable pollster that says 89%. so let's take your 93% and let's take this poll's 89% and just agree that basically nine out of ten americans want this information on the product. and when asked if they want it in the form after mysterious barcode that compromises their privacy, they use it and they don't even know why it's on the product or they want it in terms of a simple statement or symbol, they want the simple statement or symbol. so, gail, thank you for your letter. and william of chimolt, oregon, "i'm distressed to learn the senate agriculture committee last week approved voluntary g.m.o. labeling. this would be a disaster if it becomes our law. as your constituent i'm writing to ask you to oppose this and

any other scheme that would make g.m.o. labeling voluntary." now, william, i'm sorry to report it's even worse than voluntary because the actual label is banned by this bill. a state cannot put a real label or symbol on the product. instead this is the antilabel bill. it says you have to put on things so the customer can't see that there are g.e. ingredients. it bans putting consumer friendly information on the product. instead it proposes a wild goose chase where you have to call some call center somewhere, some 800 number somewhere and hope you can get through the phone tree, hope eventually they'll stop saying that because of phone volume it will be another 30 minutes before we can talk to you, hope that somehow when you get to that call center it's not staffed by folks who speak the english language with such an

accent that you don't even understand what they're saying or they don't understand what you're saying. it's even worse, william, because they want to put a barcode on as a substitute with no indication for the purpose of this barcode so that it's just a mystery. why is this there? i don't know. does this tell you about their upcoming products? does this tell you about advertisements for discounts? if you take your smartphone and you snap on this because the only way that barcode has value and every senator in this room knows this fact, it only has value if you tell the consumer why that barcode is on the package. if you say this product has g.e. ingredients for details scan this barcode, then that's a valuable contribution. but without that indication, this is just another wild goose

chase taking customers on a crazy adventure with no real information when they could have had a symbol that in one second answered their question. and, william, it gets worse. if you can believe it, it gets worse because under this voluntary standard, what counts as a nonlabel not only the 1-800 number or a barcode or computer code of some sort, what also counts is putting something in social media somewhere. or -- well, what's social media? there are a hundred different social media companies. how are you supposed to discover even if you wanted to what the information is on that product? all of this is designed, william, to prevent you from getting the information that you want right on the package with the simple little symbol. not a symbol that's pejorative. not a symbol that is scary, a

symbol chosen by the f.d.a. just to give you the information. now, brazil uses a "t" and a triangle. that would be fine. it doesn't really matter what the symbol is because citizens who want to know can find out that that indicates that there are g.e. ingredients but, no, that would be giving you information. and the goal of the monsanto deny americans right to know act is to prevent you from getting information. so i want to turn to anna in beaverton, oregon. anna says, "i want to ask that you share with your colleagues that this bill is an insult to the intelligence of americans. limiting citizens the right to make safe choices when purchasing food, hamstringing

the diet and medical professionals who treat among other things food allergies and, therefore, could result an allergic person ingesting a food fraction that could result in a fatal reaction." now, here is the point. this bill is an insult to the intelligence of americans. anna, you have this right. this is about senators who do not respect your intelligence, who do not honor your right to make a decision as consumers. they know that this is incredibly popular idea to put a symbol or phrase on a package to indicate it has g.e. ingredients, because citizens want to know. the members here, they know this. and they don't care. because they want to make your decision for you. they do not want to allow you

freedom to make your own choices. they do not consider you to be an adult. they want to treat you like a child who is fed only the information they want to give you. so, anna, i am deeply disturbed about this insulting legislation that tears down the gel generals of our -- intelligence of our american citizens that says to the nine ous -- nine out of ten americans in every state of this union that we want to strip away your ability to make your own choice. carrie from eugene writes, "why are we protecting large conglomerates and process food companies instead of protecting the american people? " well, that's a good question, carrie. i suppose it's because these companies make huge donations under the constitutional decisions of our supreme court.

you know, it's a very interesting story here about the evolution of our country, because when our forefathers got together to draft the constitution, they had a vision of citizens having an equal voice. now, that decision was somewhat flawed, as we all know, flaws we've corrected over time related to race, related to gender. but the fundamental principle was that citizens got to have an equal voice. what they pictured was this: they pictured the town commons, which costs nothing to participate in, and that each citizen could get up and share their view in that town commons, could share their view before the town voted or they could share that view equally with the person representing them in congress. this is what thomas jefferson

called "the mother principle," that we are only a republic to the degree that the decisions we make reflect the will of the people. and he said, for that to happen, the citizens have to have an equal voice. those are the words he used -- "equal voice" and "mother principle." and lincoln talked about the same thing, "equal voice" as the foundation of our nation. so when you asked the question, carrie, about why are we protecting large conglomerates, well, at the expense of where the american people stand, you have to go back 40 years ago to a case called buckley v. valeo, and in buckley v. valeo, the supreme court stood this principle, the mother principle of equal voice, on its head because now we have a

commons that is for sale, the commons is the television, the commons is the radio, the commons is the information on web sites. and they said basically affluent americans could buy as much of that commons as they want. so instead of an equal voice, jefferson's mother principle, you instead have completely unequal voice. those with fabulous wealth have the equivalent of a stadium sound system, and they use it to drown out the voice of ordinary americans. and then a couple years ago on a 5-4 decision of the supreme court, they doubled down on the destruction of our "we the people" nation. theyer to those three -- they tore those three words out of the start of our constitution and they did so by saying, you know what? we are going to allow the board

members of a corporation to sell their owners -- or to utilize their owners' money for the political purposes that the board wants to use, and they don't have to even inform the owners of the company that they're using their money for these political purposes. so you have this vast scwentration of power -- concentration of power in corporations because corporations are large, they have a small board, the board says, we want to influence politics in this fashion, and we don't even have to tell the owners about it. and so that is a hugely addition destructive force on top of buckley v. valeo. there is nothing in the constitution that comes close to saying that corporations are people. and there certainly was nothing

that said a few people who sit in a decision-making capacity should be able to take other people's money and spend it for their own political purposes. that was never envisioned. and so between these decisions over several decades, we have destroyed the very premise of our constitution. thomas jefferson's mother principle, that we are only a republic to the degree we reflect the will of the people. so that is the best i can do, carrie, to explain how it is possible that this bill, which flies in the face of nine out of ten americans, has maded it to this floor. now, this bill didn't go through committee. we have leadership in this body that pledged regular order, and they were going to put things through a committee and bring bills to the floor that had been passed by committees, but this hasn't been. that's how much, as you put it, carrie, the large conglomerate is influencing what happens here in this senate.

judith of gran grant's pass say, "please do not support this bill that would block states from requiring labels on genetically modified foods. people have a right to know whether or not they are considered safe." and she's right. she's absolutely right. it's whether or not they're considered safe. this isn't a scientific debate. there is science of concerns, science that i've laid out here on the floor. there's also science about benefits. but that's not the issue. the issue is a citizen's right to make their own decision. if they are concerned about the massive increase in herbicides and the destruction it does to the soil, they have a right to exercise that in the marketplace. if they are concerned about the massive amount of runoff of herbicides affecting the basic food chains in our streams and

rirvetion they have that right -- and rivers, they have that right. if they are concerned about the fact that there has been some movement of genes from crops to related weeds that then become resist taints herbicides -- then become resistant herbicides, that's their right. if their concerned about g.e. corn is producing pesticided resistant t. that is their business. these are not fan tom concerns. none of this says it is unsafe to put in your mouth. i hear that all the time. well, it is not unsafe to put these g.e. things in your mouth. but here's the thing. that isn't the basis on which we label. we label things people care about and there are implications to how things are grown and their impact. for example, we have a federal law that says that grocery stores have to label the

difference between wild fish and farm fish. now, why is that? well, there are implications to what happens in different types of farms and disens are giving a heads-up by this law and they can look into it and see if it is a concern. they may not be at all concerned about how catfish are raised in the farm setting, but they may be very concerned about how salmon are raised in farm settings because we find that there are some bad effects of salmon raised in pens in the ocean that transfer disease to wild salmon. but that's their right. they get to look into it. we give them that ability by requiring that this information be on the package. i don't hear anyone in this chamber standing up right now and saying they want to strip our packages of the information of wild fish versus farm fish. we have basic information on

packages regarding whether juice is fresh or whether it's created from concentrate because citizens care about the difference. so we give them this basic information to facilitate their choice. and that is the point. we facilitate their choice. kimberly writes in, "i'm writing to urge you to vote no on anything that would block vermont's bill. the right know what we eat is critical." richard from portland writes, "i urge you to filibuster, if needed, to stop the dark act." well, i would like to do that, richard. i'd like to do anything i could to slow this down so the american people know what's going on. but here is the level of cynicism in this chamber. last night, when the majority leader filed this bill, which

has never gone through committee, he simultaneously filed a petition to close debate. and under the rules of the senate, that means after an intervening day, there's going to be a vote. and there's no way that my speaking here day and night can stop it, because it's embedded in the basic rules. however, i can try to come to this floor several times and lay out these basic arguments and hope to wake up america to what is being plotted and planned in this chamber right now. so that's what i'm trying to do. i hope that it'll have an impact. i hope that when the vote comes tomorrow morning after this intervening day -- tuesday being the intervening day -- that my colleagues will say, this is just wrong, stripping americans the right to know, something nine out of ten americans want.

stripping states of the ability to respond to their citizens' desires, shutting down a single state laboratory in vermont when there's no conflict on labels at this point because only one state is implementing a law. i hope that they'll say, you know what? this should be properly considered in committee. this bill should be in committee. it should be given full opportunity when it does come to the floor -- and i assume it would -- to be able to be openly amended, that anyone who wants to put forward an amendment would be able to do so. that's the way the senate used to work. you know, when i was here as an intern in 1976, i was asked to staff the tax reform act of that year, and i set up in the staff gallery. and at that point there was no television on this floor. so, therefore, nobody outside this room could track what was going on. there were no cell phones. there was no other way to convey what was occurring.

so the staff set up in the staff gallery, and then when a vote was called, you'd go down the staircase to the elevator just outside here, and you would meet your senator and you would brief your senator on the debate that was happening on that amendment. and that's what i did, amendment after amendment after amendment, day after day after day. and as soon as that amendment was voted on, there would be a group of senators seeking recognition of the presiding officer. and you would hear everyone go simultaneously, "mr. president?" because the rule is that the presiding officer is supposed to recognize the very first person he or she hears. and so everyone tried to be first the moment that an amendment was done, the moment the vote was announced. well, with all those people simultaneously seeking the attention of the chair, it's really impossible for the chair

to sort out exactly who is speaking first. and so they'd call on someone on the left side of the chamber. and then when that amendment was done an hour later -- because they'd debate it for an hour, a vote was done. they'd call on somebody on the right side of the chamber. they'd work it back and forth so that everyone got to hear or have their amendment heard. that's an open amendment process. i've heard many of my colleagues across the aisle call for that kind of process when the democrats were in charge. and i support that kind of process. i supported it when i was in the majority. i support it when i'm in the minority. everything that i've proposed for talked about to make this senate chamber work better as a legislative body i've supported consistently, whether i'm in the majority or whether i'm in the minority. so here is the thing. we have the opposite of that right now. we don't have the senate of the

1970's where senators honored the right to debate and had an open amendment process. that would really change this. that would provide an opportunity for all viewpoints to be heard. you would never have had a cloture petition filed within seconds of the bill first being put on the floor. and be it would have been incredibly rare for a bill to be put on the floor that had not gone through committee. we have to reclaim, we have to reclaim the legislative session process, and right now we don't have it. so that's a great reason to vote "no" tomorrow morning. voting "no" tomorrow morning is the right vote if you believe in states' rights. it's the right vote if you believe in the consumer right to know, the citizen right to know. and it's the right vote if you believe that we shouldn't have a process in this chamber that

just jams through something for a powerful special interest at the expense of the americans who want this information. so tomorrow, colleagues, let's turn down this insult to the intelligence of americans, this assault on states' rights, this deprivation, this attack on the freedom of our citizens. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: the next supreme court justice could dramatically change the direction of the court, and the majority of this body believes that the american people shouldn't be denied the opportunity to weigh in on this question. we believe that there should be a debate about the role of the supreme court justices and our constitutional system. with this in mind, i want to spend a few minutes discussing the appropriate role of the court. before i turn to that, i note

that the minority leader continues his daily message on the supreme court vacancy. most of us around here take what he says with a grain of salt, so i'm not going to waste my time responding to everything he says. i'll just note that this is what he said in 2005 when the other side was filibustering a number of circuit court nominations and a few months before they filibustered the alito nomination to the supreme court. quote -- "the duties of the senate are set forth in the united states constitution. nowhere in that document does it say that the senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote. it says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the senate. this is a very different thing than saying every nominee receives a vote."

end of quote. with that, i'll turn to the appropriate role of justices. part of what makes america an exceptional nation is our founding document. it's the oldest written constitution in the world. it created a functioning republic, provided stability, protected individual rights and was structured so that different branches and levels of government can resist en croachment into their areas of responsibility. a written constitution contains words with fixed meanings. the constitution in many ways the nation has survived because we have remained true to those words, and our constitutional republic is ultimately safeguarded by a supreme court that enforces the constitution and its text. our constitution creates a republic where the people decide who will govern them and by what

rules. the supreme court can override the people's wishes only where the constitution prohibits what the people's elected officials have enacted. otherwise, the court's rulings are improper. stated differently, the justices aren't entitled to displace the democratic process with their own views. where the constitution is silent, the people decide how they will be governed. this fundamental feature of our republic is critical to the preserving of individual liberty. the temptation to apply their own views rather than the constitution has always lurked among the justices. this led 150 years ago to the dred scott decision. it led to striking down many economic regulations early in

the last century. and americans know all too well in recent decades that the supreme court has done this regularly. justice scalia believed that to ensure objectivity rather than subjectivity in judicial decision making, the constitution must be read according to its text and its original meaning as understood at the time the words were written. the constitution is law, and it has meaning. otherwise, what the court offers is merely politics masquerading as constitutional law. justice scalia wrote that the rule of law is the laws of rule. the law is not justices reading their own policy preferences into the constitution. it's not -- it's not a

multifactor balancing act untethered to the text. we all know that justices apply these balancing tests to reach their preferred policy results. the court is not and should not be engaged in a continuing constitutional convention designed to update our founding documents to conform with the justice' personal policy preferences. the constitution is not a living document. the danger with any justice who believes they're entitled to update the constitution is that they will always update it to conform to their personal views. that's not the appropriate role of justices. as justice scalia put it -- quote -- "the times, they are a changing is a feeble excuse for

disregarding, disregard of duty." end of quote. now when conservatives say the role of justices is to interpret the constitution and not to legalize or legislate from the bench, we're stating a view as old as the constitution itself. the framers separated the powers of the federal government. in federalist 78, hamilton wrote -- quote -- "the interpretation of the laws is a proper and peculiar province of the courts." end of quote. it's up to elected representatives who are accountable to the people to make the law. it's up to the courts to interpret it. these views of the judicial role under the constitution were once widely held. but beginning with the warren court in the 1960's, the concept took hold that justices were

change agents for our society. democracy was messy and slow. it was much easier for justices to impose their will on society in the guise of constitutional interpretation. acting as a super legislature was much more powerful than deciding cases by reading the legal text and the record. the view -- the view took hold that a justice could vote on a legal question just as he or she would vote as a legislator. perhaps the framers underestimated what federalist 78 called -- quote unquote -- "the least dangerous branch, one that can take no active resolution whatsoever." since the days of the warren court, this go activist approach

has been common, striking down as unconstitutional laws that the constitution doesn't even address. now to his credit, president obama has been very explicit in his view that justices aren't bound by the law. while he usually pays lip service to the traditional and limited and proper role of the courts to decide cases based on law and facts, he's always quick to add that on tough cases a judge should look to her heart and rely on empathy. the president's empathy standard is completely inconsistent with the judicial duty to be impartial. asking a justice to consider empathy in deciding cases is asking a justice to rule based

on his or her own personal notion of right and wrong rather than the law. as i've said, everyone knows this president won't be filling this current vacancy. nonetheless, the president has indicated he intends to submit a nomination. that's okay. that's his power. he's constitutionally empowered to make the nomination, and the senate holds the constitutional power to withhold consent, as we will. but as we debate the proper role of the court and what type of justice the next president should nominate, it's instructive to examine that the president says he's looking for in a nominee. the president made clear that his nominee, whoever it is, won't decide cases only on the law or the constitution. he wrote that -- quote -- "in

cases that reach the supreme court in which the law is not clear, the justices should apply his or her life experience." end of quote. this of course is just an updated version of the same standard we've heard from this president before. it's the empathy standard. of course a justice who reaches decisions based on empathy or life experiences has a powerful incentive to read every case as unclear so that they have a free hand to rely on life experience to reach just outcomes. the president also said any justice he'd nominate would consider -- quote -- "the way the law affects the daily reality of people's lives in a big, complicated democracy and in rapidly changing times."

that i believe is an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes. end of quote. with all respect to the president, any nominee who supports this approach is advocating an illegitimate role for the court. it's flatly not legitimate for any justice to apply his or her own personal views of justice and fairness. perhaps most troubling is the president's statement that any nominee of his must -- quote -- "arrive at just decisions and fair outcomes." end of quote. that's the very definition of results-oriented judging, and it flies in the face of a judge as a fair, neutral, and totally objective decision-maker in any

particular case. a justice is to question assumptions and apply rigorous scrutiny to the arguments the parties advance, as did justice scalia. under the president's approach, a justice will arrive -- will always arrive where he or she started. that is not judging. that's a super legislator in a black robe. in our history, regrettably, we've had justices who embrace this conception. chief justice warren was famous for asking, is it just? is it fair? without any reference to the law when he voted. justice scalia's entire tenure on the court was devoted to ending this misplaced and

improper approach. in reality, a justice is no more entitled to force another american to adhere to his or her moral views or life experiences than any other ordinary american. imposition of such personal biases subjects our citizenry to decrease from on high -- to decrees from on high that they can't change except through constitutional amendment. and those decrees are imposed by officials that they can't vote out of office. in other words, lifetime judges. this is not the constitutional republic that the framers created. the american people deserve the opportunity during this election year to weigh in on whether our next justice should apply the text of the constitution or alternatively, whether a justice should rely on his or her own,

quote unquote, life experiences. and personal sense of right and wrong to arrive at -- quote unquote -- just decisions and fair outcomes. senate republicans will ensure the american people aren't denied this unique and historic opportunity. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i have listened to my good -- what my good friend from iowa said about the standards that he is afraid that an obama nominee would utilize. i would note in the dozens and dozens of cases, probably hundreds that obama nominees have voted on, my friend from iowa did not mention a single case where they applied anything but the law, and i suspect that

would be the standard by anybody the president would nominate. now, on another matter, to set the record straight, contrary to the remarks of the senate majority leader yesterday, vermont has not recently passed a g.e. food habeas elg law. i -- food labeling law. i mention that because i'm old-fashioned enough to like to have things clear and accurate in this chamber. it was in may, 2014, nearly two years ago that after two years of debate, more than 50 committee hearings featuring testimony from more than 130 representatives on all sides of the issue, the vermont legislature and vermont's governor signed into law a

disclosure requirement for genetically engineered ingredients in food. now, in this body, here's the difference. after one hearing five months ago, the only -- that only was tangentially related to the issue and without any open debate on the floor, the republican leadership has decided it knows better than the state of vermont. today we're being asked to tell vermonters and actually constituents in other states with similar laws that their opinion, their views, their own legislative process simply doesn't matter because we can decide on a whim to ignore them. we're actually being asked to tell consumers that their right to know isn't frankly theirs at all. i think in my state, the presiding officer's state and all other senators' states, consumers think they have a right to know.

we're telling them no, not so much. i hear from vermonters regularly, actually with growing freakily we're proud of vermont's act 120. it's a law that simply requires food manufacturers to disclose when the ingredients they use are genetically engineered. it doesn't tell them they can't use those ingredients. it simply says consumers have a right to know. tell us what you're doing. now, vermonters are concerned, some are actually outraged because the united states congress is trying to roll back their right to know. and vermont's not the only state that the law is under attack. we just happen to be the state with the fastest approaching deadline for implementation. the bill that we have considered today is a hasty reaction, a reaction with no real open hearing to a 2-year-old law

that's set to finally take effect, that doesn't fully take effect until the end of this year. and instead of protecting consumers and trying to find a true compromise, the bill continues the status quo and tell the public we don't want you to have simple access to information about the foods you consume. you don't need to know what's in the food. trust us. we know better. we know better than you consumers. we the members of the senate know better than you do, so don't -- we're not going to let you know what's going on. no wonder people get concerned. vermont's law and others like it around the country are not an attack on biotechnology. vermont's law and others like it merely require factual labeling

intended to inform consumers. all we're saying is if you're going to buy something, you ought to know what you're getting. you said you want to buy it, go ahead. nobody's stopping you. but you ought to know what's in it. producers of food and the g.e. products have nothing to hide. you take campbell's, here is a multibillion-dollar brand, certainly one of the biggest brands in this country. they are already taking steps to label their products. they have to do that to comply with similar laws in other countries. and they said sure, we'll comply, we'll label. we're going to be able to follow vermont's law or any other vermont -- or any other state, rather, that says our people would kind of like to know what they're buying.

our ranking member on the agriculture committee, senator stabenow, has had commitments from other c.e.o.'s in the food industry. they are ready and able to move ahead with labeling national disclosure. they actually know the consumers really care about what they're getting. now, the united states senate wants to tell those millions of consumers you have no right to know. we're going to block your chance to know. we're going to keep you from knowing, but they actually want to know. and some of these large companies say we agree. an asterisk, symbol, fax notation or product label, that's not going to send our economy into a tailspin or cause food prices to spiral out of control. and again, let's get rid of the rhetoric. i have read some on the floor of this chamber argue that vermont's labeling law is going to cost consumers an average of

$1,000 more per year in food purchases. wow. the second smallest state in the nation is passing a law which says simply tell us what we're buying, and we're going to cost -- we're going to cost consumers $1,000 more per year in food purchases. if the claim wasn't so laughable, we might be able to ignore it, but we find out where that cost estimate came from. directly from a study paid for by the corn refiners association based on every single food manufacturer in the united states eliminating g.e. ingredients from their food. we're not asking anybody to eliminate anything. we're just saying if i buy something and i'm going to feed it to my children or in my case my grandchildren, if my wife and i are going to eat it, i would kind of like to know what's in

it. all we're asking for is a simple language. at a time when too much of the national discourse is hyperbolic at best, why don't we set an example for the rest of the country, try a little truth in this chamber. g.e. labeling should be the least of our woes. in fact, the bill before us today is an attack on another vermont law. oh, my god, the sky is falling. that law has been on the book for, well, only ten years. the law is on the books in virginia, the genetically engineered seafood labeling law. farmers in vermont have complied with this law and other states have well. this law has worked well for ten

years and companies are already complying. are we going to do that because one or two companies have wanted to spend a great deal of money on -- on donations otherwise? because g.e. labeling is about disclosure. give consumers more information, more choices, more control over what they feed themselves and their families. if we hide information from consumers, we limit a measure of accountability for producers and marketers. i don't know what people are trying to hide in vermont. our producers and marketers are proud to showcase not just the quality of their products but the methods with which they are produced. we're not blocking our markets to anybody, whether it's with g.e.-produced foods or otherwise. we ought to say if it works, you

have got your choice. why have 100 people here say oh, no, we know better than all of you? i'm a proud cosponsor of senator merkley's bill that provides for a strong national disclosure standard that would give manufacturers a whole variety of options to disclose the presence of g.e. ingredients in their food. they could pick and choose how they do it. i'm equally grateful to senator stabenow. she has fought hard to negotiate a pathway toward a national disclosure standard. but before we're not going to have that, at least have a real debate, not a cloture vote, no debate, just you poor united consumers throughout the country, we know better than you. i'm not going to support any

bill that takes away the right of vermont or any state to legislate in a way that advances consumer awareness. we don't want to have a patchwork of state disclosure laws, then let's move in the direction of setting a national mandatory standard. certainly one of the biggest food companies in this country are going to look forward to doing that voluntarily. well, this week is sunshine week, so let's hope the senate rejects efforts to close doors and not let the american public know, and i hope they will pose advancing this hastily crafted legislation and find something that actually lets the consumer in texas or iowa or vermont or anywhere else know what they have. i see the distinguished majority deputy leader on the floor.

i have more to say, but i will hold it for later. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: last week when the senate passed the comprehensive addiction and recovery act, i spoke about the good work that's getting done in the senate since republicans have taken over. time and again, we have seen both sides of the aisle come together to find practical solutions to real problems facing the american people. that's the way the senate is supposed to work, and we need to keep that momentum up as we move forward to tackle other critical issues. as chairman of the judiciary committee, i continue to be proud of the role that we have played in getting work done in a bipartisan manner. today the senate is poised to unanimously approve another judiciary committee bill that solves real problems and is supported by folks on all ends of the political spectrum. so don't get me wrong. finding agreement on both sides of the aisle is no easy task.

even the most well-intentioned efforts can get bogged down in detail. but the fact that we're here today is a testament to the good-faith negotiations and a commitment to make -- to make our government work for the american people. and it's another indication of what this institution can be and what it was meant to be. the freedom of information act improvement act or foia improvement act, i should say, makes much-needed improvement to the freedom of information act. and its passage will mark a critically important step in the right direction towards fully fulfilling foia's promise of open government. i'm proud to be an original cosponsor of the foia improvement act, and i want to thank senator cornyn and the ranking member of the judiciary

committee, senator leahy, for their tireless bipartisan work to advance this bill through the senate. i'm especially proud that the bill's passage is set to occur during this year's sunshine week, an annual nationwide initiative highlighting the importance of openness and transparency in government. this year marks the 50th anniversary of foia's enactment. foia was created to ensure government transparency, and transparency yields accountability. for over five decades, foia has worked to help folks stay in the know about what their government is up to. by peeling back the curtains and allowing the sunshine -- sunlight to shine in, foia helps fight back against waste, fraud and abuse of the taxpayers' dollars.

despite its successes, a continued culture of government secrecy has served to undermine foia's fundamental promise. problems with foia have persisted under both republican presidents and democrat presidents. but under president obama, things have only worsened, and his commitment to a new era of openness has proved illusory at best. for example, we've seen dramatic increases in the number of backlog foia requests. folks are waiting longer than ever to get a response from the various agencies of government. sometimes they simply hear nothing back at all, and we've seen a record-setting number of foia lawsuits filed to challenge an agency's refusal to disclose information. more and more agencies are sim

ply finding ways to avoid their duties under foia altogether. they are failing to proactively disclose information and are abusing exemptions to withhold information that should be released to the public. these are serious problems that we're addressing today to help change the culture in government towards openness and transparency. what we've accomplished with this bill in a bipartisan manner is a strong step in the right direction. importantly, the bill codifies a presumption of openness for agencies to follow when they respond to foia requests. instead of knee-jerk secrecy, the presumption of openness tells agencies to make openness and transparency their default setting. this is just one of the bill's timely and important reforms to the foia process, and they will

help ensure a more informed citizenry and a more accountable government. so i'm pleased to see this bill move through the senate. president obama has an opportunity to join with congress in securing some of the most substantive and necessary improvements in foia since its enactment. on july 4 of this year, foia turns 50. let's continue this strong bipartisan effort to send a bill to the president's desk before that july 4 birthday. let's work together to help fulfill foia's promise. and i ask unanimous consent that my full statement be included in the record. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, as i think the senator knows, i've

worked for years on this along with my friend, the senior senator from texas. and i'm glad we were joined this year by the senator from iowa. we are celebrating sunshine week , and also we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the freedom of information act, foia that's actually our nation's premier transparency law. i was at the archives yesterday, and i looked at the actual bill signed into law by then then-president lyndon johnson, vice president hubert humphrey, speaker john mccormick, all who were here long before i was. i was thinking that was 50 years ago.

the freedom of information act is the foundation which all our sunshine transparency policies rest. so i can think of no better way to celebrate both sunshine week and the 50th anniversary of foia than by passing the foia improvement act. and this bipartisan bill -- and we've kept it that way -- which i coauthored with senator cornyn codifies the principles that president obama laid out in his 2009 executive order. he asked all federal agencies to adopt a presumption of openness in considering the release of government information under foia. that sort of followed what was the spirit of foia put into place by president clinton, had been repealed by president bush and now reinstated as one of president obama's first acts in office. but i think all of us felt let's

put the force of law behind the presumptive openness so that the next president, whomever he or she might be, cannot change that without going back to congress. congress can establish a transparency standard. i think it will remain for future administrations to follow. we shouldn't leave it to the next president to decide how open the government should be. we have to hold all presidents and their administrations accountable to the highest standard. i don't think my friend from, the senior senator from texas will object if i mention that in our discussions we both said words to the effect that we need foia whether it's a democratic or republican administration. i don't care who controls the

administration. they do things they think are great; we're going to have a sheath of press releases on it. they do things we're not so happy about it, we're not going to be in any great hurry to have it. the government works better if every administration is held to the same standard. and last congress, the foia improvement act which senator cornyn and i wrote passed the senate unanimously. the house failed to take it up. so as the new congress came in, again to show it is bipartisan now with a change from democratic leadership to republican leadership, senator cornyn and i moved quickly to reintroduce our legislation. and in the senate judiciary committee, unanimously approved it in february 2015. madam president, sometimes it's hard for the senate judiciary committee to unanimously agree

the sun rises in the east. but on this issue, we came together. our bill has been awaiting senate action for over a year. i urge its swift passage today. i want the house to take it up. i want the president to sign it into law. i'm proud to stand here with my good friend, the senior senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, i want to thank my colleague, the senator from vermont, for being together with me i guess what some people would regard as the senate's odd couple. people with very different views on a lot of different things but who try to work together on legislation like this, freedom of information reform legislation. but i can think about others that we've worked on as well, like patent reform, criminal justice reform. i think most people are a little bit surprised when they see us

fighting like cats and dogs on various topics, which we will, and those fights are important when they're based on principle. but thing they're a little bit surprised when they see us then come together and try to find common cause, common ground on things like this. but this is the sort of thing that makes the senate work. this is the sort of thing that the american people deserve when republicans and democrats, people on, all along the ideological spectrum work together to find common ground. and i couldn't agree with the senator more about really a statement of human nature. it's only human nature to try to hide your failures and to trumpet your successes. it's nothing more, nothing less than that. but what the freedom of information act is premised on is the public's right to know what their government is doing on their behalf.

i know some people might think, well, for somebody who is a conservative, this is a little bit of an odd position. actually i think it's a natural fit. if you're a conservative like me, you think that the government doesn't have the answer to all the challenges that face our country that sometimes, as justice brandeis said, that sunlight is the best disinfectant. indeed, i know something else about human nature, that people act differently when they know others are watching than they do when they think they're in private and no one can see what they're doing. it's just human nature. so i have worked together with senator leahy, the senator from vermont, repeatedly to try to advance reforms of our freedom of information laws. and i'm glad to say that we today will have another milestone in that very productive bipartisan relationship on such an

important topic. this is sunshine week, a week created to highlight the need for more transparent and open government. let me just mention a couple of things this bill does. it will, of course as we said, strengthen the existing freedom of information act by creating a presumption of openness. now it shouldn't be incumbent on an american citizen asking for information from their own government, information generated and maintained at taxpayer expense. they shouldn't have to come in and prove something to be able to get access to something that is theirs in the first place. now there may be good reason, classified information necessary to fight our nation's adversaries that may be personal, private information that's really not the business of government. but if it is in fact government information bought for, maintained by the taxpayer, then there ought to be a presumption

of openness. this legislation will, in other words, build on what our founding fathers recognized hundreds of years ago, that a truly democratic system depends on an informed citizenry to hold their leaders accountable. and in a form of government that depends for its very legitimacy on consent of the government, the simple point is that the public doesn't know what government is doing, how can they consent? so this is also about adding additional legitimacy to what government is doing on behalf of the american people. so i just want to thank again the chairman of the senate judiciary committee. we've had a pretty productive couple of weeks with passage of the comprehensive addiction and recovery act which the presiding officer was very involved in. and now passage of this legislation by, i hope by unanimous consent. so, madam president, at this

point i would ask consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of calendar number 17, s. 337. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 17, s. 337, a bill to improve the freedom of information act. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, i'd ask consent that the cornyn substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, and that the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. cornyn: thank you, madam president. again, let me express my gratitude to my partner in this long-standing effort since i've been in the senate, senator leahy, who's worked tirelessly together with me and my office and really the whole senate to try to advance the public's right to know by reforming and

expanding our freedom of information laws. thank you. mr. leahy: madam president, i thank the distinguished senior senator from texas. he has worked tirelessly on this. and i think we both agree the best government is one when you know what they're doing. madam president, i might on another matter -- and i thank the distinguished senior senator from florida for not seeking recognition immediately. i ask consent that as soon as i finish i can yield to the senator from florida. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. leahy: madam president, the woman in the photograph next to me is verna casares, an indigenous honduran environmental activist. she was murdered in her home on

march 3. she was internationally admired. and in the 12 days since her death, since my remarks the morning after, on the day of her funeral, march 5, there's been an outpouring of grief and outrageous with denounceations from people in honduras and around the world. i'll put the full statement in the record but i call on the honduran government to finally, finally do the right thing. take seriously its responsibility to protect the rights of journalists, human rights defenders, other social activists, civil society organizations that peacefully advocate for equitable economic development and access to justice.

we are asked to be a partner with honduras. we're asked to send large amounts of foreign aid. we're asked to do things for honduras but if they want us to be a partner, we have to have confidence that we can work with them and address their needs and protect the rights of all people of honduras, particularly those who have borne the brunt of official neglect and malfeasance , horrible criminal malfeasance in some instances for so many years. so, madam president, i ask consent my full statement be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and, madam president, i yield the floor to the distinguished senator from florida. mr. nelson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: madam president, i would just add to senator

leahy's comments that a year ago, unfortunately, honduras was known as the murder capital of the world, the highest per-capita murders per 100,000 people. that has improved some, but that little poor nation under its new president struggling to overcome the drug lords, the crime bosses that prey upon a country that is ravaged by poverty, and it is such a tempting thing when all kinds of dollars are drug in front of their noses in order to tempt them to get involved in these crime syndicates that have a distribution network of whatever it is, drugs, trafficking, human trafficking, other criminal elements, a

distribution that goes from south to north on up into the united states. so i join senator leahy in his expression of grief and condolences for the lady that was murdered. madam president, this senator has conferred with the administration on its proposal in the atlantic seaboard for the drilling, at least the administration listened to this senator and september the atlantic area off of my state of florida from proposed drilling leases for this next five-year lease period. they did that last year, and we are grateful that they did that

for the reasons that we have fought for years to keep drilling off of the coast of florida, not only what you immediately anticipate tourism, the environment but also our military training and testing areas. so this senator made the argument to the obama administration if you're coming out there with leases off the atlantic seaboard, don't put it off of florida. we have military and intelligence rockets coming out of cape canaveral air force station. we have the rockets coming out of the kennedy space center for nasa. obviously, you can't have all rigs out there where you're dropping the first stages of these rockets.

and the administration complied. but the administration then went on to offer for lease tracks of the atlantic ocean from the georgia line all the way through the carolinas, including up to the northern end of virginia. very interesting. just this morning the administration has walked back the offering of those leases off the eastern seaboard of the united states. now, it's certainly good news, not only for certainly the fact that they never did it in the first place off of florida, but it's good news for the atlantic coast residents who then fought so hard to keep the drilling off

their coast. they first released this draft plan in january, 2015, a year ago, and the department of the interior had suggested opening up these new areas of the mid atlantic. as you would expect, communities up and down the atlantic seaboard voiced their objection, and they did it in a bipartisan way. from atlantic city to myrtle beach, cities and towns along the coast passed resolutions to make clear their opposition to the drilling off their shores. and obviously they weren't the only ones because surprise, surprise, just this week the pentagon weighed in and voiced

its concerns as having been just corroborated in the senate armed services committee when i asked the question of the secretary of the navy the concerns that drilling in the mid-atlantic region would impact the military's ability to maintain offshore readiness because of the testing and training areas. now, madam president, the pentagon had expressed to voice this two administrations ago with regard to drilling in the gulf off of florida, which is the largest testing and training area for our united states military in the world. and so today while the interior department's decision to remove the atlantic from the five-year plan, well, what about the next five-year plan? and what about the rigs already

operating in other areas off of our coast such as off of alabama, mississippi, louisiana and texas and the gulf? well, we have carried on this fight for now four decades, and today we still have a renewed push to allow drilling off of these sensitive areas for the reasons that i have mentioned. and some of our own colleagues are offering an amendment to a little energy bill that's about energy efficiency. it's a nongermane amendment, but what they want to do is to sweeten the pot with all of the revenues for offshore drilling that would normally go to the federal government instead to go to the states.

another incentive to do that drilling by the oil industry. but what we saw was the coastal communities in this case is the mid-atlantic seaboard rise up and voice objections regardless of their partisan affiliation. we've seen again today the pentagon raise its objection, and unfortunately we have found a federal safety regulator found to be asleep at the switch. it's been nearly six years since we faced one of the greatest natural disasters that our country has ever seen. that was the gulf oil spill. and yet according to the g.a.o.

report released just last week, we are no better off now than we were before on that tragic accident, and as a reaction to that accident, the deep water horizon oil rig explosion that i remind you killed 11 men and sent up to almost five million barrels -- not gallons, barrels of oil gushing into the gulf, there were a number of questions that were asked. how could this happen? where were the safety inspectors? well, it soon became clear that the agency in charge, a subdivision of the department of interior, the minerals management service, it was so cozy with the oil and gas industry that the interior department's own inspector general considered it a conflict of interest.

and in response to the i.g.'s findings, the interior department decided to reorganize, and it split that agency, the minerals management service, into two, one in charge of leasing and the other in charge of safety. but last friday, the g.a.o. -- what's the g.a.o.? general accounting office. it's the independent nonpartisan research arm of congress. it released a report that found that the ongoing restructuring that's splitting in two actually -- quote -- reverses actions taken to address the post deep water horizon concerns. weakening its oversight, end of quote. the report goes on to say that the interior department's newly

created agency in charge of safety, one of those two had split. the bureau of safety and environmental enforcement suffers -- this is the report's words -- quote -- "a lack of coherent leadership" and -- quote -- " inconsistent guidance." and so here we are six years after the gulf oil spill, and we are weakening oversight, the very words of the report six years later. obviously, this is inexcusable. and that's why a number of us have asked the energy and natural resources committee to hold a hearing on this troubling

report to get to the bottom of it. now, at some point, the objections of the vast majority of people who live along the coast and the economies that depend on those environments and those white sandy beaches and crystal blue water and military bases that are utilizing the testing and training areas over those waters, at some point they have to be heard. their concerns have to be addressed. we cannot have to keep having a fight every time this comes up every five years. it's too much at stake, and yet the fight goes on and the new evidence mounted just last friday and lo and behold the results of that new evidence this morning pulling the plug on the leasing off the eastern

coast of the united states. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor today in support of the biotechnology labeling solutions bill. this legislation will avoid a patchwork of state labeling regulations and in so doing will save families thousands of dollars a year, protect american jobs and provide consumers with accurate, transparent information about their food. first of all, i want to thank chairman pat roberts for his leadership on the issue of bioengineered food and for bringing forward his chairman's mark, specifically the biotechnology labeling solutions bill does three things. it immediately ends the problem of having a patchwork of inconsistent state g.m.o. labeling programs.

second, it creates a voluntary bioengineering food labeling program within one year, so the usda would set up a voluntary program within a year. and then within three years, it requires the department of agriculture to create a mandatory bioengineered labeling program if there is insufficient information available on a product's bioengineered content. so it makes sure that we don't have a patchwork of 50 state labeling laws, it sets up a voluntary program within one year, and then if the information isn't out there sufficient for consumers, it makes sure that usda follows up and ensures that that information is provided and that it's provided in a variety of ways that works for consumers but also works for our farmers and ranchers and for the food industry so that we don't raise costs for our consumers. this bill will ensure that the vermont g.m.o. labeling law which goes into effect on july 1 of this year does not end up costing america's families billions of dollars when they

fill up their grocery carts. if we don't act soon, food companies will have one of three options for complying with the vermont law. one, they can order new packaging for products going to each individual state with a labeling law. two, they can reformulate products so no labeling is required. or three, they can stop selling to states with mandatory labeling laws. of course all of these options or any of these options would not only increase the cost of food to consumers but could result in job losses in our ag community. for millions of americans the food labeling issue will impact the affordability of their food. testimony provided by the usda, the f.d.a., and e.p.a. to the senate ag committee last fall made clear foods produced with the benefit of biotechnology are safe. really, no one is disputing that. that the food is safe. the real risk is if we don't

address the vermont g.m.o. law, real families will have a tougher time making ends meet. they're going to face higher costs and they're going to have more challenges getting the food products they want. in fact, food companies have to apply vermont standards to all products nationwide, it will result in an estimated increase of over $1,050 per year per household. for families having a tough time paying bills, this is in essence a regressive tax and will hurt people of low income more than it will hurt those with substantial means. from a jobs perspective, the story is also concerning. it's been calculated that if vermont's law is applied nationwide trks will cost over $80 million a year to switch products over to non-g.m.o. supplies. those billions of dollars a year in additional costs will hurt our ag and food industry that creates more than 17 million jobs nationwide. in my home state of north dakota

alone, 94,000 jobs or 38% of our state's economy rely on the ag and food industry. mr. hoeven: and this is a bad time to make it more expensive to do business in the ag sector. recently in a -- an economist at the federal reserve bank testified that net farm income in 2015 is more than 50% less than it was in 2013 and is expected to go down in 2016. so this is an issue that affects our family farms directly across the country. also vermont -- if vermont law goes forward, many farmers who rely on biocrops to increase productivity will be deprived of that critical tool. i know how hard our farmers work and how much they put on the line every year when they have to take out an operating loan for crops that may or may not materialize. we shouldn't ask them to feed the nation with one hand tied behind their backs by taking away biotechnology. more than just overcoming the

problems associated with having a patchwork of state regulations, i think it's important for americans to know that this legislation ensures that consumers have consistent, accurate information about the bioengineered content of their food. biotechnology labeling solutions bill creates greater trarns parent si for consumers by putting in place in one year a new bioengineering labeling program to ensure products labeled as having been produced with biotechnology meet a uniform national standard. as i mentioned, food produced with the aid of bioengineering are according to the f.d.a., e.p.a., and usda safe. however, many consumers do want to know if the food they're buying is produced using biotechnology, which is why this legislation's national voluntary bioengineering standard makes so much sense of the voluntary program in this legislation will ensure that a consumer who buys a food product with

bioengineering smart label in north dakota is purchasing a product that is held at the same disclosure standards as food sold in, say, new york, california, or north carolina. this voluntary program will let the marketplace respond to consumer demand for information. you can look at the usda organic food program, a voluntary label many consumers look for and can easily find in our grocery stores. yet this bill goes even further by requiring usda to create a mandatory bioengineered food disclosure program if the secretary of agriculture finds that there is insufficient consumer access to information about bioengineered food. madam president, we need a solution. this bill helps keep our nation's food affordable. it supports jobs, and it provides consumers consistent information about bioengineered foods. and so i urge my colleagues to work together to support this bipartisan measure.

if i may, madam president, i'd like to take just a minute to acknowledge, recognize, and thank our nation's farmers on national agriculture day. today on national agriculture day, i want to celebrate and thank america's ag producers. that includes those in my home state of north dakota who provide us with the lowest cost, highest quality food supply not just in the world but in the history of world. america's grocery stores abound with fresh fruits, vegetables, and meats. our dinner tables are able to offer our families a greater variety of nutritious flavorful foods than ever before. they are a testament to the hard work, commitment and innovation of our nation's agriculture producers. agriculture and ag-related industries are also an important part of the american economy contributing $835 billion to our gross domestic product in 2014. further, america's food and ag

sector provide jobs for 16 million people and contributes billions of dollars to the national economy. agriculture also has a positive balance of trade and produces a financial surplus for our country. i especially want to thank the men and women of north dakota who farm and rank. they have paid agriculture north dakota's largest industry with nearly $11 billion in sales last year. i'm proud to say that north dakota leads the nation in the production of nine important commodities and is first or second in 15. this includes half of all the durham and spring wheat, more than 9 on% of the nation's flax and more than 85% of the nation's canola. america's farmers and ranchers work through drought and floods, crop disease, hail, and other challenges year in and year out, yet they still get up every morning, put on their boots and go out in the field and pastures for our country. our farmers and ranchers built

america and today they sustain it. our national agriculture day we acknowledge the enormous debt of gratitude we owe them. thank you, madam president. and with that i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. a senator: thank you, madam president. i thank the distinguished senator from north dakota on his comments. i would like to be associated with all of them, in fact particularly recognizing our farmers in our state. the senator from north dakota and i have had discussions about the friendly competition in terms of agriculture states and the hard work that they're doing to feed america and the world. mr. tillis: today, madam president, i rise to express my support for chairman roberts bill for the biotechnology labeling legislation. i'm support of chairman roberts' effort because it addresses a real problem. the problems that are a small portion of the food industry is trying to impose their policy preferences on to the entire food supply chain in the united states. we are aware we are because the

vermont law is not written in a way that merely impacts the citizens of vermont. it's astonishing to hear the misleading claim that vermont law is about the right to know. if the vermont law was about the right to know, why is it that the law exempts so many products? here are some examples of the absurdity about the vermont law. vegetable cheese lasagna would be labeled, but meat lasagna wouldn't. soy milk would need to be labeled, but a cow's milk would not. frozen pizza would need to be labeled but delivered pizza would not. vegetable soup would need to be labeled but vegetable beef soup would not. food at a restaurant would be totally exempt, but not food at a grocery store.

vegetarian chili would need to be labeled but meat chili would not. veggie burgers made with so i would need to be labeled but cheeseburgers wouldn't. it's a patchwork that to my way of thinking doesn't make sense if you're really trying to come up with a consistent way to communicate to consumers what's in the food they're eating. the vermont law is a classic case of government picking winners and lose irs and -- losers and putting the burden of the decisions on the back of hard-working americans. i had this slide to begin with. i think this is something we have to continue to be focused on. it's estimated that the added cost of compliance, if you were to take the vermont law and have a couple of dozen other states create their own variance and have all the complexity added that would result in a cost of some $1,000 additional per household. in this economy how many families can afford another $1,000 a year for food?

i'm surprised that number is not higher. manufacturers and it most likely will be and here's why. manufacturers are subject to $1,000 fine if one of their products is mistakenly or inadvertently found for sale in vermont on a store shelf. the food industry will have over 100,000 items in the state of vermont, a state that has some 600,000 residents. if only 5% to 10% of those products are even unintentionally mislabeled, that means fines of as much as $10 million per day in addition to the millions per year companies will have to play -- pay to actually change their supply chains to comply with the law to serve a population of 625,000. we are often told in this chamber that we need to be more cognizant of the science. those who are irresponsibly scaring the american people with hopes of vermont mandatory labeling need to really

understand that the science is against them. late last year, the f.d.a. rejected a petition calling for mandatory labeling of foods from genetically engineered crops stating the simple fact that a plant is produced by one method over another does not necessarily mean there will be a difference in the safety or other characteristics of the resulting foods. it goes on to say, to date we have completed over 155 consultations for biotech plant varieties. the numbers of consultations completed coupled with the rigor of the evaluations demonstrate that foods from biotech plants can be safe, comparable foods as those produced with conventional plant breeding. the usda secretary mr. vill vilk emphasized mandatory labels are not about food safety, nutritional benefits or the science. two weeks ago the secretary was

quoted at a conference referring to genetically modified products and he said this. i am here to unequivocally say that they are safe to consumers. chairman roberts' language does exactly what congress should be doing with regards to marketing standards. and that is setting rules of engagement that are consistent, balanced and fair for all players in the industry by providing consistent information to consumers about the content of their food. with the chairman's bill the marketplace is an opportunity to find the best approaches to getting consumers the information they want without imposing new regulations that add cost to our food supply, complexity, and no more real information or clarity. if we as a nation are going to have a discussion on the necessity of labeling technology products, fine, but the vermont law is not the catalyst for the debate. and that conversation should be with the american people, not

one state with fewer than 650,000 people dictating to the market of more than 317 million people. so, madam president, and i encourage my colleagues to recognize that we should do everything that we can to inform consumers about the content of their food. there's a right way to do it and there's a wrong way to do it. there's a more costly way to do it as has been proposed by the vermont law or there's a more straightforward, effective and consistent way and that's what chairman roberts is trying to accomplish with this bill. i encourage everyone to support it. thank you, madam president. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. manchin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: do we have a quorum call set? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quoirk. mr. manchin: i'd like to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: i'd like to rise today to discuss the presidential nominations, and i think most people in this body know that i'm probably one of the least partisan people looking at the issues, working across the aisle, always reaching out to my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle. i don't look at the barrier that a lot of people look at here. i know that we're able to debate and we're able to advice and

consent on nominations because we just did it. you know, i have a tremendous problem in my state, and i think all of our states -- colorado, all over across the country on opioid addiction, drug abuse. and with that being said, i truly believe for us to fight this war, we've got to have a cultural change within the f.d.a. the president of the united states nominated dr. robert califf, a very good man, but a person that came within the industry who i did not think would bring a cultural change. but he was still the recommendation of the president. the majority leader from kentucky basically brings it to the floor for a vote. i thought it was the wrong person. even though it was from my side of the aisle, from my party, the president being a democrat and me being a democrat. so for us to believe that we're going to just hard, hold hard to party lines i think is a misnomer. and i've said this, i didn't

think that he would bring the cultural change. i hope he proves me wrong. i'm willing to work with him on that. and i will fight and make sure that we rid this country the scourge of legal prescription drug abuse that's ruining families, destroying lives. so i think we've proven that the president can bring people up. that's his responsibility. we can look at that person and agree. in this case here, i only had four votes on my side. the majority of all the republicans but one -- yeah, all the republicans but one voted for him. i still think it was wrong, but we're going to make the best that we can. the bottom line is, mr. president, we did our job. we truly did our job. and i can live with that decision. and i think -- i look at this, the constitution is very clear

saying the president shall. it doesn't say "may." and being in the legislature, you being in the legislature, "shall" and "may" are two worlds apart. it says he shall nominate. and he will nominate. we know that. and why we're not willing to go through this process, i'm as likely to find someone that he might recommend that i won't vote for as maybe you. and maybe our other colleagues. and i saw what happened when i first got here. we got condemned for not voting at all. we weren't getting any votes because there was protections trying to go on. basically who's up in cycle. tough votes make it very difficult for people to get reelected. we proved that to be wrong because basically we have seen a big switch in the senate in the majority to the minority, from the minority to the majority. so i said very strongly no vote is worse than a tough vote. a "no" vote in this body is

worse than a tough vote. if you're saying that i'd rather not vote at all because it might cause a problem back home, i can get more problems if we don't do our job. and that's what i can't figure out. if the president brings a person up, there's going to be two or three months, and if we can't find someone that we can agree on with 60 of us that we can agree on, that means it's going to take at least 14 republicans to find someone we can agree on that they think is good for the country and move forward on. if not, then it will run right into the next administration, whoever that may be. but basically we would be doing our job. and i just -- i've had a hard time on this one. i'm going to evaluate that nominee based on their legal qualifications and judicial philosophy. i'm going to look and basically see how they have been a jurist, what type of a jurist they have been, what type of basically

decisions they made and what type of social media they have been on and talked about. i'm going to look at all of that, which is what we should be doing to find out as much as i can about that person, how i think they're going to govern and rule in the future. hopefully we can find somebody that's basically going to look at the issues and look at the rule of law and look who we are as a country. i think that we all can do that. i know very well that you can. i know very well that every one of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle is able to do that. and i don't believe that the president has basically, could count on all democrats just because he's a democrat, going to follow along. if that was the case, we wouldn't have had ed markey from massachusetts and myself voting and dick blumenthal voting against robert califf, which is his nominee. we're going to have to find that right person. but if we never get a chance to evaluate a person, i don't know how we're going to do it. and again, it truly gets down to

this is the job we're supposed to do. we talk about orderly business. we're getting things done. i've had people say we're getting things done now that the republicans are the majority. mr. president, you've been here long enough to understand the majority might set the agenda, but it's the minority that drives the train. whether we get on something or not. so we have to work together. we've proven that the old game plan didn't work. the new game plan is fine. let's have an open amendment process. let's go through it, let's debate it and let it go up and down on its merits. and that's what we're asking for on this. let it go to committee. the nomination comes, go to committee. look at that nomination. i mean dissect it every way, shape or form who that person may, he or she. i'm living with whatever the committee comes out with. i'm going to do my own research. it comes to the floor, no guarantee i'm going to vote for that person, absolutely not. and i've already proven that, and all of us have proven that that we haven't just blindly followed party lines.

nor should we. we're not expected to. our constituents don't expect us to do that. they don't want us to do it, that's for sure. again, i will state the constitution states the president shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the senate shall appoint. only can he appoint if we have the advice and consent of the senate. there's no other way this president or any other president can make that decision. we make the final decision. and again, we're down to the point now where the rhetoric is back and forth, it gets a little bit harsher, everybody gets ingrained, entrenched, we're not going to take anybody up, i don't care who that person would be. i hate to see that. we're all friends. we all know each other, and we all truly, i believe, are here for the right reason, wanting to do the best job that we can. but we're still expected to do our job, at the end of the day, did you do your job?

yes. we looked. the president gave us somebody. we didn't think that person was qualified. we didn't think they were centrist enough. they didn't have the background, they didn't have basically a record that we could extract what we thought their performance would be in the future. and for that, we voted against that person. or the president gave us somebody that basically we found did not have political ties to either side, that basically ruled on the law, the best interpretation of the law with the constitution always at the forefront. that's the person that he gave us and that's the person we would support. but if we never get a chance to look at whoever is given to us, there's no way we can move forward. and we can't -- you know, when i was governor of the state, my great state of west virginia, i had to do the job 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, every minute of every day, every day of every

week, every week of every month, every month of every year. it was expected. that was my job and i tried to do the best i could and there was some times i had to make some tough decisions, i had to get some people together and basically there were times there was so much division we had to move forward and let it cool off but we always tried to do the best job for the people of west virginia. i think the people of america expect us to do a better job. i don't care who gets credit for it, republicans or democrats. basically it should be all of us because the way this body works it takes 60 votes to get on something if we want to make that criteria. and with that being said, i can assure you, there won't be a person that the president of the united states gives us, whether it's this president, the next administration, next president, we're going to find that perfect jurist. we're not going to find that perfect jurist. we're not going to find someone slanted too far to the left or too far to the right that we can't get 60 votes. we're going to have to find

somebody that's shown some common sense and some civility about him and basically using the constitution as his basis and framework of how the decision they made as a jurist and show that that's how they're going to govern in the highest court in the land and be a model for the rest of the world that we're still a land of rules. we are a government of rules. we are a body, that the rule of law means everything. and it's hard for us to do that if we can't find someone we feel is qualified to do the job. so, mr. president, i would urge all of my colleagues, all of mile colleagues in this great body, all of my dear friends, all my republican dear friends to look and think about this. the right person is not there, don't vote for him. as a matter of fact, i'd probably vote against him too. i have before. i think i'm the most centrist member of this body, and i'm going to vote what i think is good for my country and for the

state of west virginia. and i think the people of west virginia expect me to do that, and they expect me to do my job too, sir. with that said, i hope we have another opportunity to think this over. the president probably will be giving us somebody in very short order. i would hope that we're able to move to where the judiciary committee is able to look at that person, give us their findings on that person and either tell us why we should not advise the president that we're going to consent or find a person that we can all agree upon and move forward. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. daines: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: i ask to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 400 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 400 designating march 25, 2016, as national cerebral palsy awareness day. the presiding officer: without objection the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. daines: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: mr. president, i understand there is a bill at the desk and i ask for first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 2686, a bill to clarify the treatment of two or

more employers as joint employers under the national national labor relations act. deign deign dashes. mr. daines: i ask for second preegd -- reading and object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be read for a second time on the next legislative day. mr. daines: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:15 a.m., wednesday, march 16. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. further, that following leader remarks the senate then resume consideration of the message to accompany s. 764. further, not withstanding the provisions of rule 22, the cloture vote on the motion to reconsider to concur with further amendment at 11:45 a.m. finally the time following leader remarks until 11:45 a.m.

be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senator blumenthal. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, an important consumer right is under attack, under siege today in the united states senate. it's the right to know what is in your food. a lot of consumers take it for granted that they will read the ingredients on a weaj and they will know what's in their food. the right to know what you're putting in your body is a basic right, and especially what your

children are putting in their bodies. i understand that the agriculture committee has reported and the majority leader has indicated that he will bring to the floor a misguided anticonsumer measure that will not only dilute but decimate an essential aspect of that right to know. it's not the name of the bill's proponents that they're using, but i agree with members of the house and this body who have called this bill the dark act. why? because it denies americans the right to know. unfortunately, that's essentially what the bill does. it denies americans the right to know. i hold a pretty simple belief that labels on the food we buy should accurately reflect what's

in the food. whether it's the nutrition content, the ingredients, whether something is organic or not, consumers should know what they are paying for and what they are putting in their bodies. that's how we keep the large corporations that make most of our food from using ingredients that are unhealthful, unhealthful and essentially potentially deceptive. like the overwhelming majority of people in this country -- and, by the way, a poll released in december said it was about 90%. i support mandatory unpackaged labeling of food containing genetically modified organisms, g.m.o.'s. this support cuts across geographic lines, party lines because it's such a commonsense

position. leave it up to consumers to decide, you and i when we buy food products and when we consume them, if they want to buy a particular product, let them do so, but make sure they know what they are getting. this issue is of particular importance to my constituents. i'm proud that connecticut was the first state to enact legislation that would require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods, and as attorney general of connecticut, i champion this measure, and it is a consummate example of consumer protection and consumer education. the dark act, by contrast, would strip my state of its ability to protect our own people. it would prevent states, including connecticut, maine, vermont, which have already done so, from enacting laws requiring

the labeling of g.m.o. foods. it would take away from states their right to pass laws to ensure their citizens have access to basic information about their food, and it would preempt long-standing state consumer protection laws in all 50 states. these laws pertain to false advertising, consumer protection, fraud, breach of warranty or unfair trade practices. this measure is a sweeping and draconian proposal. and that would be bad enough, but the dark act actually goes further. it would also bar states and local communities from enacting any kind of law overseeing genetically modified crops. several counties in california and oregon, as well as the states of washington and hawaii have restricted planting of g.m.o. crops, citing the

untested health effects of g.m.o. seeds, the economic effects of the megacompanies that produce these seeds on local farmers and the unknown long-term environmental consequences. but this bill would stop all of those efforts, state and local efforts, stop them in their track dead. in addition to keeping information from consumers, the dark act would affect hardworking farmers who will have no way of knowing whether the seed they purchase is genetically engineered, and that's true even if the seeds are altered in a way that prevents crops from reproducing, forcing farmers to buy new seeds every season from the g.m.o. company. now, i don't mean to cast aspersions on the biotechnology industry. there is enormous potential in research on this front, and

scientists have made many, many contributions to our food supply, and there may be scientific efforts under way in this area that have healthful and economically beneficial results. but keeping consumers in the dark is harmful, and the rule ought to be first do no harm. if there is scientific support for the health or environmental benefits, why not let consumers know, let consumers make knowledgeable and informed choices. consumers are capable of those kinds of choices, and i am shocked that this deliberative body is considering a measure that is crafted so purposefully and intentionally to in effect

deceive the american public and actively deny them the accurate information they deserve. there is no question that this bill is nothing more than a carveout for big businesses and mega-g.m.o. seed corporations. my view is that this body ought to facilitate transparency. the federal legislation should promote information and education, not inhibit or prevent it. that's why i have endorsed a bill that senator merkley and others of us are proposing and advocating that in a very commonsense way allows manufacturers to choose from a menu of options to indicate to consumers whether a product includes genetically engineered ingredients. i want to make clear and emphasize we are not calling for

some kind of skull and crossbones logo or black box warning label. in fact, we're not talking about a warning. we're talking about information and the options on the menu that would be offered to food producers are nonjudgmental, clear, concise and accurate. this information is impartial and objective, allowing consumers to make informed decisions. last month, the secretary of agriculture convened a series of meetings in an attempt to broker a compromise between industry and labeling advocates, and i want to take a moment to commend the unflagging leadership of a number of groups in my state and one of my constituents, tara cook littman who, by

coincidence, was the only woman at these meetings. she is the co-founder of citizens for g.m.o. labeling. she led the grassroots effort in connecticut to pass the first in the nation g.m.o. labeling law. she is also the mother of three children whom i have met. like most americans, she cares deeply about what they and her family are eating. as part of their innovation cycle, food companies often redesign and relaunch products, adding new attributes to existing products such as flavors and new ingredients, so they can handle the normal course of relabeling and repackaging and one of the most important points that tara has raised is that the industry's proposed solution to include

q.r. codes on g.m.o. products is really no solution at all. q.r. codes which let you use a smartphone to scan a product to be linked to a webpage with information are no substitute for clear, explicit labels that all consumers can see with the transparency and objectivity they deserve and need, and relying on q.r. codes discriminates against people who are unable to afford a smartphone or data plan. it threatens privacy by allowing industry to keep track of who is scanning what product, information that many of us might not want to be in the hands of companies and used to market to us. and from a very practical standpoint may not be usable where reception is weak or

nonexistent. everyone who has shopped with a baby or child knows shopping is hard enough under some circumstances, and forcing companies to try to get the right scan of a product when the information could simply appear on the label is absurd. and what is the reason for the q.r. code other than to make it more difficult for a consumer to know? what rationale could there be other than creating a hurdle for that consumer to learn that information? so i urge my colleagues do not be fooled or tricked by the dark act claims that food prices will rise with g.m.o. labeling. not so. food processors regularly make changes to these labels to meet

changing consumer demand or for other marketing or regulatory reasons. in fact, ben and jerry's co-founder, jerry greenfield, confirmed it's a normal course of business to be going through changes on your labels, and other responsible food companies have joined ben and jerry's. most prominently, campbell's soup. i commend their leadership. my constituents and all consumers should be aware that there are companies like campbell's who have stepped forward and want consumers to be more informed, not less. we are on the brink of potentially passing legislation as early as tomorrow morning that would ban states like connecticut from requiring g.m.o. labeling. that is a violation of the very essence of states' rights to protect their citizens. it may well be that some states want to be stronger in protecting their citizens than

others, and they should have the right to do so. preempting all state legislation in this area infringes on that fundamental sovereignty and right of states to protect their citizens. as the american association of justice has stated, this legislation will unjustly preempt state consumer protection laws, and i know the importance of that preemption doctrine as a former attorney general who has fought consistently to allow states to set standards for consumer protection and enforce those standards both federal and state. i commend those manufacturers that have realized that now is the time to embrace g.m.o. labeling, including campbell's, ben and jerry's, amy's kitchen and nature's path. i hope that we can work together with food manufacturers to give american consumers like

consumers in 63 countries around the world -- 63 countries around the world a more transparent food system by proving a mandatory on packaging g.m.o. labeling system and rejecting this anticonsumer effort. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence -- the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until the elec,

on the primary trail.l the elec, we are joined by a familiar voice, rubber cost of -- robert costa. good morning to you. robert: good morning from florida. host: you're in florida, florida being a must win state for marco rubio today. i was with senator rubio last night. he spoke in the back of a pickup west in his hometown of miami. it has been a difficult road for the hometown senator. he's been behind in the polls in florida, trying to catch up, trying to save his bid. it looks like donald trump is

going to win here in florida. his second florida home. although his organization here is limited, he has strong grassroots base. the: florida, according to average of polls, is going for trump now 42.1% to marco rubio's 23%. another must win state -- ohio. take us through where that stands in the home state of governor john kasich. robert: ohio on the republican side is certainly the state to watch. that is why donald trump was there last night. was planning to be in miami last night along with rubio. he changed his plans and went to youngstown, ohio. had a rally with governor christie of new jersey. those polls have been very exciting in ohio. kasich, who's only been able to

do well in a few key states in the northeast, he thinks because of his network in ohio, his the things because of his network in ohio, his ability to have an operation there he can be competitive. now that the republican establishment has seen case against someone who could be a viable alternative the trump rubio has become the favorite for that kind of role. because rubio has fallen behind in florida and kasich is competitive in ohio, that dynamic in the races changed. missed all of this, a texas senator tidwell and some of the other states. >> host: as you are watching the republican field, where is the 1st place that there could be a signa sign that the polls maybe off what might have a different story line 24 hours now?latebrea

>> guest: you have to pay attention to the suburbs ins and florida.ubur rubio has done well with latebreaking voters throughout this entire campaign. trump is starting to do well early on in florida, especially along the eye forri core door. looks like a trump when. flo that is one of the bigit is stories of the night. and kasich, you have to keep an eye on the rural areas in ohio. he will be -- maybe have a chance of upsetting in ohio. >> host: tonight on the democratic side what you will be watching. >> guest: especially with his recent win in michigan, narrow when but a significant one. when it comes to states with high populations all working-class backgrounds,

he does very well. and so senator sanders iss looking at ohio where he can remain competitive which is why tonight, the urban areas of ohio, cleveland, that is a place where he has a big h chance of doing well. senator clinton, her network in florida, her campaign is good. she has done well in the airways. a state thatestate that is so big you have to have a lot of campaign ads. a large tv presence. well, missouri, you could see someone like clinton doing well. senator sanders, that alsototo fits his bill. in the south clinton has done so well.e policy, the they are gravitating toward her. >> host: heard so much about trade policy, tpp,

transpacific partnership leading up to key battles and manufacturing states, ohio and illinois. do you expect these to remain in the air so much on the campaign trail and onsu the airwaves? as the contest moves on the other states and that west, are you expecting other policy issues? >> guest: trade and immigration are intertwined in this election, especially in the republican party.rkers ot when you talk about trade in the transpacific partnership is really a discussion about jobs.grow stagnation, so many workers in industrial jobs or service jobs stagnated.ok to tru they blame the trade deals for that stagnation.

that is fueling a lot of the economic unrest that is making people maybe look to trump. it that outsider popularity is because of what people have assigned. overweighted. blamed on trade deals. certainly that is the mood out there. >> host: robert costa live from florida. always appreciate your time. thank you for joining us. >> guest: thank you. >> in the luckier that when the polls close tonight. live coverage of the results as they come in command we will bring you candidate speeches beginning live. you can also share your comments. at a house oversight hearing today falsely accused of mishandling the water contamination in flint, michigan.

resignation as regional administrator. asked by lawmakers when concerns were raised about the decision to change the water supply. you can see that hearing in its entirety tonight at 8:00 p.n c-span2. [inaudible conversations] >> russia announced yesterday was pulling troops out of syria. after six months of military intervention. the press secretary said russia did not give the us advanced notice, and it was too early to determine the impact of that decision. the press secretary to questions on the water contamination in the 2016 presidential race. >> straight to questions. >> could you talk a little bit about the reversal and

why the administration and present change your mind? >> the department of interior has spent a great deal of time soliciting input from a variety of interested parties. today's proposal was reform by more than a million comments, 23 public meetings were convened in addition to extensive outreach members of the public nonprofit organizations across the country. there were a variety of factors that contributed to the decision. it included conflicts that were raised by the department of defense. significant military facilities and some portions of the atlantic coast where these leases were

considered. the department of defense raised concerns about the way the drilling and exploring activities could have an impact on their work in the region of the country. commercial interests raised similar concerns. also factored in was the response from the vision that existed in many coastal communities. concerned about the offshore drilling sites. and then finally, an assessment of current energy market dynamics the factored in to the overall decision as well. obviously discovers the next five years. it is -- the lead sale has been removed, and the

department of interior has made the decision that is consistent with the priorities the president has outlined and consistent with a variety of factors that should be considered for a decision like this. >> one of these pockets of opposition? >> we took all of this feedback quite seriously. we wanted to ensure the decision was made reflecting the interests and concerns and priorities that have been laid out by the department of defense, but it would be wrong to assume that anyone of these was the driving factor. this is a decision that was based on the variety of public comments in the variety of factors i have outlined. >> what was the president's reaction to pull out troops from syria?

>> well, i can tell you the united states did not have -- let me say this way, russia did not get direct advanced notice of this decision to the us. however, you saw the president had an opportunity , previously scheduled telephone call with president putin, and it was not opportunity for the two leaders to continue there discussion both about the situation in syria and the situation in ukraine. and we have long said that our priority in syria is bringing about the ambition that is long overdue. it is the political chaos that is the root cause of so many problems we're dealing with right now. everything from the growth of isi l to the widespread humanitarian disaster to

even the challenges that many european countries are experiencing in taking an influx of migrants from the country. the root cause of all of those is the political turmoil inside of syria and the fact that president asad has lost legitimacy. notable that they reiterated their commitment yesterday to redoubling efforts to work with the international community to advance the political dialogue and bring about the kind of political changes in syria that are needed. >> and the president's reaction? >> well, it is obviously a move that we will be watching. the earliest indications are that the russians are

following through. but it is still too early to determine exactly what impact it will have on the broader situation most importantly the cessation of hostilities in the continued pursuit of political talks inside of syria. they are talked about the constructive russian contribution to the political talks would be important to success. and so that is why we again made note of the fact that they have indicated publicly again as recently as yesterday that they recognize that these political talks in a successful transition is in the interest of the region and other countries that have interests in the region , like russia and the united states. ..

>> we are bringing all the facilities together for an agreement, then that would be a positive outcome. that's not just for the people of syria and not just for the people that have been destabilized their. [inaudible question]

we would like to again talk about how donald trump would react to something like this. >> i think that the president was struck, and many in the white house, were struck by how the annual reception that was generally hosted by speaker orion, typically it is an event that was characterized by a lot of bipartisan camaraderie and fellowship. and it is an annual opportunity for leaders in both parties in washington to put aside their partisan affiliation and celebrate one part of america that makes us great. and that is the legacy and our

country that is immigration. in the deep ties that our country has to ireland. after all, irish immigrants have thrived in america and that is a testament to the kind of possibility that exists in america and it is certainly what makes our country unique in that it's an important part of what makes us great. that is something that is regularly celebrated by democrats and republicans in washington dc. and in some ways it does stand in stark contrast as to the boulder and divisive rhetoric that we are seeing on the campaign trail. and so then noting the ongoing

commitment. the president is redoubling his efforts to ensure that our political disagreements can be debated without demonizing and marginalizing or questioning the very motives of people who just happen to disagree. and the president did take advantage of the opportunity today to talk about it. i am confident it is not the last time. [inaudible question]

>> i will let the russians read out their side of the conversation if they choose to share more about president lattimer putin's comments. there was a lot of skepticism about the international community's ability to successfully implement this. and so this is what we are talking about what it comes to hostilities being implemented. there have been some violations to have been reported. we are working with our international partners to follow up on those violations. but by and large the implementation of hostilities so far has gone better than expected. that we have seen a dramatic reduction in air strikes.

and there have been some reports of violations that are related small arms fires and we are concerned about those violations on things that are like arnold vehicle is. we have said all along that this hostility and we did two things. the first is to allow for aid workers to provide badly needed humanitarian assistance to those individuals that have been caught in the crossfire's. the second goal is to try to lower the temperature, so to speak inside of syria. then we have that proposition right now, the proximity talks that are hosted by the u.n. and in geneva it has begun. there are still some additional parties to make sure that we

have everyone there so we can have a successful round of talks. and so we are encouraged as we are working on the diplomatic track. you have heard me say that russia has an aggressive military intervention in support of the sheer lack regime was a hindrance to those talks. the russians have promised to at least scale back if not removing it entirely and it remains to be seen how and whether or not they will follow through. it remains to be seen in ackley what impact they will have on the talks themselves. we are heartened by the fact that the russians reiterated just yesterday that they support the successful.

they support progress as we are engaging constructively and having all the parties do so and it was notable that they repeated it because it obviously is consistent with the goals of the united states. [inaudible question] >> at this point i do not think it is constructive for me to try to spend a lot of time affecting their motives. and so what we are focused on is trying to advance these political talks and the russian leaders and the american leaders and leaders of a bunch of other countries have all knowledge been advancing those talks has clearly been in our collective vested interest in so the

question now is how effective can the community coordinate to support these talks and we're certainly going to do our part. the russians have vowed to do there is and hopefully they will and we will see what kind of progress we can make. [inaudible] obviously there were elections and they didn't elect a new president and the united states does congratulate him on his election to the presidency. it is yet another important step forward in the democratic transition. and they are democratically selected government and it's a remarkable part of the country's

history. and they have had the opportunity to talk about this, the president have the opportunity to talk about this and there's no denying the progress the political reformers in burma have made. there are additional steps to we believe that they should take to support the burmese people and the burmese government as they decide how to implement those additional reforms. >> back to the president's campaign today. [inaudible] >> i feel confident in telling you that the president would've made those comments even if the st. patrick's day activities had

been held on st. patrick's day. so even if it had been thursday i'm confident that the president would have been struck by the same inspirations to know that this is not an event that is often characterized by camaraderie and fellowship and that stands in contrast unfortunately. [inaudible question] it could be tarnishing the american brand.

and there is a robust debate and there should be an aggressive vigorous and robust and deeply engaged debate. and it is a sign of the strength of our democracy. and this leads into the debate. [inaudible] and so this is not at all consistent with our tradition

and the president did not have to resort to this. he never resorted to belittling people, to suggest that somehow people who are different, based upon the way they look or they pray, in fact, the president motivated people and biodiversity of strength, that is the mantra that the president believes. he abjuration ended up being an important strength of the president's campaign.

so we are taking a closer look and we are taking a look at who knew what and when. and so i think that it is without a doubt true that there is an important rule when the federal government to be playing in supporting the state and local officials that are primarily responsible that are primary to the situation. and i think you have seen them marshal such extensive resources. and we have also mobilized significant financial resources.

and so with people that are struggling that is part of it. we are certainly going to continue to look for additional ways to help to understand that there is a neglect of response in the part of the map that has had a kind of logistical expertise that allows them to assist in the distribution of water and filters and that includes working to clean up the water spots. >> the irish leaders today said the issue of the referendum in the uk came up during the meeting. you have anymore details on that >> i do not have any updated

scheduling and we have acknowledged that he traveled to germany in late april. [inaudible] and that is how the united states benefits from a strong british ally as a part of the eu. and so the people have the ability to decide for themselves.

and so mr. cameron has given them the opportunity to do that in late june. we always we respect the right of british voters to decide for themselves. [inaudible question] [inaudible question] >> i know that there has been, there have been reports, of discussions among the eu nations and how they can more effectively coordinate with the turks to address this significant influx of what they

have been dealing with. and this has been given the significance of consequences that we have had with these countries absorbing such a large influx of new arrivals and especially with what sort of agreement would be reached and how exactly and what sort of

situation could be judged by the international community. we will let them do that work and then we will take a look at what they decided. >> more on the cube announcement today, the announcement of this has not been a part of the group. so what else will they be able to do with exchanges. [inaudible question] when they are not part of a larger group with language barriers, making sure that everything comes together with the existing embargo. and we do believe that it will make sense for americans who

wish to travel to cuba to do so. [inaudible] and all that would be a good thing, all of that would be in service of the basic policy goals that we laid out from the beginning. and it would be prioritized by the u.s. government for 50 years under this embargo in an attempt to isolate this and make a lot

of progress and we hope that the changes will bring about some of the progress with cuba. when it comes to implementing the regulations and how people can travel to cuba and be in compliance with the law i would like to refer to the treasury department as to how that can be done. >> did you attempt an olive branch? >> no, i don't think that i would describe it that way. i think that the president is pretty direct in noting how concerned he is with the debate on the republican side of the aisle. he had been quite dismayed that some candidates had targeted women and minorities and people of disabilities and will religious minorities,, all in an effort to motivate those orders.

the president did acknowledge that for those in public life and those of us, myself included, those who speak frequently and public, that we probably made comments that we regret, intemperate remarks that in hindsight were not appropriate were certainly were not up to the standard and so he was going to redouble his own commitment and his own effort to live up to the high standards that the american people should rightly expect of their leaders and frankly it is time for the republican candidates to do the same thing and i think that the other thing that this highlights , and this is something that i noted yesterday, it makes it a little bit harder to answer the question or leaders in the

republican party about why they can continue to support someone who continues to use the rhetoric not just daily but multiple times per day when hosting multiple events per day. so that is something that we will have to get a result on in the republican party and it will get a result when somebody decides to step forward and show some leadership and that will be for them to decide. [inaudible] what was the president referring to on his own behalf? he suggesting that he has been too partisan in that language? >> i did not talk to him about the remarks. i don't know exactly what he had in mind. my guess is that his political

opponents have a couple of things at the top of their minds that they would suggest could be described as intemperate and then the president would acknowledge that he had wished he had succeeded doing more to try to bridge the divide. and so he's trying to bridge that divide in with the other candidates who are seeking to deepen it and exploit it for their own personal political gain. not just for the country. and the leaders have the ability to condemn it and do it when they see others doing it.

and that's more than one candidate who is engaged in this kind of tactics. [inaudible question] >> i have not yet. i know that he read about it. i don't know that he saw some of the footage there but he is certainly aware of what happened. >> wanting to ask you if there wasn't a conversation with some of those folks that will have to weigh in on that. [inaudible question] >> that was not an indication of timing necessarily.

but obviously the president was warmly received on capitol hill. he is hoping that it will be similarly perceived as well. >> no specific comments that i am aware of. >> we were talking about this and he said that there was no direct event. what does that mean? >> it just means that the russians did not give the united states direct advance notice of this announcement. >> there was some notice. where would this happen? >> i think that i have tried to be as clear as i can. i try to choose my words carefully there.

[inaudible question] >> i think that this is an announcement that was made about 24 hours ago. so i think the impact of this decision will depend upon the way that the russians followed through with their implementation of the decisions. that includes their willingness to negotiate and what the reaction will be on the part of the opposition group that negotiates in the course of proximity with the syrian government. so there are many variables here with the impact of the decision that is not immediately obvious. we will continue to watch the situation. again, what the russians did state yesterday it was they have a commitment to pursuing

diplomatic talks that would bring about this transition inside of syria and we are obviously heartened by that statement of a priority that the united states shares. >> i don't know that there's any announcements related to that. the thing that i said that i have not repeated today is that the united states helped negotiate and implement and it doesn't have any impact. it doesn't have impact on our coalition partners and availability to continue to advance our efforts to degrade and destroy isis. but i don't have any updates in terms of any renewed russian commitment at this time.

[inaudible question] >> the sanctions have been imposed against russia and are a direct result of the territorial integrity. that includes the help of our european allies that negotiated this agreement whereby both sides are de-escalating the situation in this case. the president has been clear almost literally from day one that he would be prepared to relax the sanctions on russia does not remove them entirely if we saw a russia succeed in following through on the commitments that we made.

or removed entirely and there is no ambiguity related to that and russia following through. >> strictly ukraine, not syria. let me follow, putin said yesterday that he had achieved his objectives and that was part of the reason they were pulling out in the main part if you will of the military from among his

objectives showing the regime. >> well, again, i think that's time well tell exactly how we can assess the impact and we will be interested to understand how and whether this changes the negotiating position of the regime. does this mean that they are more than willing to negotiate or less than willing to negotiate? hopefully it is the former and not the latter. >> it will impact the ability on the wide opposition groups involving terrorists and how they engage in the process. so, i think it is too early to tell whether or not that is an objective that is advanced by this decision. but again the fact that they restated that this is a priority for them is a good thing because it happens to be a long stated

priority in the united states and if that means that we can more effectively work together to accomplish the goal -- >> i want to read john mccain's statement. the administration console that solving the mantra that there is no military solution rather than facing the reality that there is a clear military convention to any political solution in syria. but as with russia and is demonstrated in syria. is mr. mccain right or wrong? >> i haven't seen his entire statement, but if he is suggesting that somehow a large scale u.s. ground combat in beijing is warranted and is the best way to advance u.s. interests he's flat wrong about that. that is not news, it is a well-known difference between senator mccain's approach to

these kind of conflicts and the more prudent approach that president obama has taken and they recognize that it continues to frustrate and in some cases anger senator mccain, but the president feels quite confident that effectively using our military power to support forces on the ground to degrade and ultimately destroy isil, that means carrying out air strikes against prominent isil targets is consistent with our strategy. but, a large-scale ground combat operation to carry out regime change inside out syria is not at all consistent with our national security priorities, and it is a failure to understand that any failure to appreciate the lessons of our

recent history in the middle east. >> last, the administrator said we could have done things to do but didn't acknowledge any responsibility wholesale on the epa. given the fact suzanne has been re-signed february 1 and given the fact we have followed the story for some time, children have been impacted adversely. is that the it the president's commitment that there will be justice and what does that look like? >> a question about justice does raise questions about blame, and again, given the independent ongoing investigations, i am not willing to comment on that aspect of this. certainly the president does feel deeply that the people of flint who have been the victims

of this terrible situation r2 something by their government, and there is a response ability for the federal government to support to our primarily responsible for responding to the situation. that's why you've seen the federal federal government offer assistance in the form of bottled water and filters to meet the urgent and the immediate need and consider funding for head start centers and additional healthcare to the needy members of the community so that they can get the treatment that they need and deserve. but what we also need to see in the united states congress to step up and offer some financial assistance so that the significant infrastructure needs can also be addressed for something the state and obviously the local government can do on its own. frankly many people worry about the situation because the local government had to be turned over

over for two and emergency management, so it is obvious the local government wouldn't have the financial resources to deal with the problem as significant and widespread is this one to intervene in the constituency because situations to look out for american citizens in a dire situation. unfortunately this has gotten stalled and blocked by the republicans in the united states senate and that is unfortunate. you say they are hesitant to respond to blame. you mentioned a couple of times the responsibility the local government had. you know that they knew about the problem for a long time and didn't notify the public. of course there is an investigation going on but if

you are willing to say so much about the state and local government and some of the details are found in it, why are you so hesitant to acknowledge that the epa could have done more if seems that is one area that you and deliberately leave out that it's hard for the fact that the new about this for a very long time and did not tell anyone. >> i think you are jumping to conclusions. >> the new about it in the paper, it's hard to dispute that. >> there's also the paper called the law are the ones that are premier league responsible. >> one problem and if there is poisoning that is even a remote possibility even if it is a remote possibility and they know

that that could be happening, wouldn't that be the ideal time to break the law, wouldn't that be the reason to say that it needs to be changed? it sounds like another layer in the bureaucracy that is an entire mess. >> one of the things we should acknowledge is the epa administrator recognizing the situation that you just pointed off might exist and send a letter to the governors and local officials all across the country making it clear that the understand how the rule is enforced and making it clear what will the epa will play in ensuring that its enforced and if they fail to follow but the way the the rule discovered the epa will not hesitate to step in to ensure protection and the health and well-being across the country. so, yes there is a responsibility for the epa to

both support the local and statewide response and also to proactively make sure that local and state officials across the country are put on notice about how exactly to implement the rule and monitor the implementation of the rule and make sure that others across the country are not affected by the same kind of mistakes and yes that is a responsibility of the federal government and yes, that is something the federal government owes the citizens across the country and the commission will not be advanced if the following their promise to eliminate the eta. >> so it's their responsibility to stay in the local government fails to go there isn't that also in this possibility if the epa fails? like that's why i'm reluctant to talk about what happens because this is all under investigation. both within the administration

and law enforcement authorities. i don't want to say anything beyond what i've said it this far to put my foot and thumb on the scale. we should get to the bottom of what happens to make sure that it never happens anywhere else. >> you repeatedly mentioned they have that responsibility. >> because there is no denying that. >> but nothing about it and not saying anything for those people that are being poisoned. >> i don't think that it's true that they didn't tell anybody. i think in some ways it that is actually the crux of the dispute is the suggestion that the state and local officials may not have followed the warnings of the epa but this is something that is being looked at and i don't want to be perceived as weighing in here. >> in the president's comments today we heard they planned

their rhetoric on the trail into the president is getting more robust in the way that it continues with the word of older and vicious. so how do we hear him make the statements even if the times at the times they are not really expected or necessarily a part of what you're saying, what do you expect the effect of effects of that could be, what is the goal in bringing this up? >> he was observing the stark contrast between the collegiality and come artery at the fellowship and a bipartisan st. patrick's day celebration in capitol hill and the divisive rhetoric on the campaign trail. i think that stark contrast is something that all of you would have noted even if the president had in terms of proactively raised it and i think that the president's goal of raising it

is to_his own personal beliefs about the responsibility to political leaders in the country have. and our best leaders are the ones who continually remind us that our country is stronger when we are not turning against one another. and that stands in pretty stark contrast that is employed by a lot of republican politicians to the positions to deepen the divide as an effort to motivate their supporters. and again in the short term that may be a useful political tactic for one politician or another but it's not good for the country. and as the president previously observed, he's confident that it's not at all going to play well in the general election.

>> so when you say he wouldn't support somebody in that kind of rhetoric is that a direct message to paul ryan who has just spoken and said he wouldn't support donald trump? >> it is a direct switch to the other leaders in the republican party about how the leading status either as elected official in the party or elected official in the country has been the certain set of responsibilities and that means standing up and speaking out against efforts to target minorities and women and those with disabilities and religious minorities like muslims. the leaders have that responsibility to speak out and they can do it in their own way. everybody has to choose the way that they feel is appropriate to do so. but there is no denying

responsibility that the leaders in this country have to speak out and speak against those that are seeking to divide the country when it's no more than a cynical selfish attempt to motivate one's own political supporters. >> are you saying that it wasn't, i know you were careful about saying there were no direct, but you have been asked a couple of times what does this imply he >> i can tell you they did not get the united states advanced direct notice of their plans. but beyond that, i don't have much to say. >> mitch mcconnell told reporters that the conversations might be a good idea to matter what the source is, to what

extent do you feel like senator mcconnell [inaudible] exactly what you've been asking. >> i think what is true is that it's hard on the one hand to say that this kind of violence or were those political tactics or that rhetoric is worthy of condemnation and on the other hand say that you be leave that person is the best man or woman to lead the united states of america. there is more than a little tension senator mcconnell and others across the country have to look to resolve. >> what you are coming very close to saying it you either did too yesterday it sounds like

the president is the number one leader in this country and there is one moral leader in the country and when you factor everything it's almost all the way up at this point. taken to the fact that our u.s. elections are not like europe's parliamentary is although they are fascinating. they were hugely popular for the european media. the leaders now are afraid they don't trump the presidency with unrecognizable extent and i know the president says he trusts the american people, that that won't happen. but really there's a lot of fear

out there. what can the president to do and has the president had any conversations with his friends and allies to build a completely different direction? >> i don't have any details of the conversations to share from here. one aspect of the question that i do think warrants a response is that there's something unique about the president of the united states, the president whoever he or she is is the one elected official in the united states but has a national constituency. the one leader that is elected by everyone in the country across the united states and that does in best in the presidency regardless of who is in the office.

a set of responsibilities. and the president increased the responsibility to do things like stand up to the basic american values. he has done that at home and around the world. but the thing i want to note is that it's not just the political leaders in this country, there are other people in position of authority and power and other people who are looked to further perspectives and in some cases their moral view. so this isn't just the responsibility of people in elected office with people that pursue the profession of politics.

the most important is for the citizen and pacific responsibility that we all have to ensure the continued success and vibrancy of the democracy. that certainly goes to a lot of what the president was talking about in the speech in springfield from last month and it's important the government and the leaders of the government government live up to the expectations of the citizens. the president certainly takes that responsibility quite seriously. >> it seems that there is another role besides the executive and that seems to be achieved and president obama has in the past taken the bully pulpit or whatever you may call it for a strong reference and commitment to that and in this time when the world was really watching there was a lot of concern that it's not living in the same direction the president would like to. >> i think that a part of what motivates the president to make

the comments like those he sold today are his sense of the country's values and the moral obligations that the countries have to stand up. what is the white house reaction to the example of the partisanship yesterday when the house voted unanimously on the resolution fighting the islamic state for genocide? >> applying the label of genocide as a policy matter is one that has significant legal implications, and that is why there are attorneys at the state department that have now for quite some time in closely examining the use and application of the term to the

situation inside of syria. that is not a small matter. it's one that the attorneys take quite seriously and it's one that we are focused on. more generally though it is important for people to understand that the president has already taken, the president already ordered military action out of concern for religious minorities who have been or could potentially be victimized by isil and that includes christians. we know they targeted christian populations and both in iraq and syria into the military action against isil to protect those minorities. so the question about the label of genocide is an important one and i'm not seeking to downplay

its significance, but i can tell you the president has already ordered aggressive robust action to try to protect religious minorities who are in the crosshairs of the fighters and we have done so with some success. but we continue to be in that region of the world including christians and we are going to continue to take steps to try to protect them even as the legal work continues. >> has the house vote to force the administration stand for a similar finding that the house came to yesterday? >> i haven't looked carefully at the resolution or spoken to our attorneys about this, but my understanding is no. the work in the state and the state department will continue. >> with the president talking about the rhetoric on the campaign trail, some people are

pointing out that when he was running against senator mccain, senator obama said if they bring a knife to the fight we will bring a gun. i know that was years ago ago but how is it different for him what is going on the campaign trail? >> one example. in the category that was described today as tempered remarks intemperate words that we regret and the president confirmed he can recall i don't know if that would fall in the category but it might. we would hasten to point out seeking to denigrate women or minorities or people with disabilities or muslims or

people in the other political party in rather colorful fashion is quite a bit different in the tone and objectives. someone that stands on the stage and suggests somehow muslims or people with disabilities or other minorities. speak to >> i think that he feels they moral responsibility for the president of the united states or citizen of the country to stand up for the values and to make it clear that's the kind of

devices and the hateful rhetoric that we see from the multiple candidates not just one of them is entirely appropriate and consistent with the core values of the country that we love. >> has the president spoken to the secretary and if so what is his feeling about the march 17 meeting? spirit i can't speak to any specific conversations with the secretary of state. the president is obviously aware the state department is engaged in this effort to make a legal determination about the use of the term genocide. i don't even know if this is a process that should be off and done independently or if this is something that the president has been briefed on the.

he also has not allowed that important ongoing work about the determination. it's not to prevent him from taking concrete steps and ordering concrete military action that we know are being victimized by isil including christians in the world there are minorities that are being attacked for their religion coming and we do know that the president has been stated this principle on a number of occasions that an assault on one individual because of their religion is an affront on all people of faith and that isn't just something that the president says when he's delivering a speech from the principle he believes in and

that he be these were fighting for. to declare genocide or not. first, a few weeks ago following the death of mr. mchale to the former press secretary to ten and tim and founder of russian television and other media out to. is this something the administration has an opinion

on? tinnitus continues to be to make this continues to be investigated by local law enforcement authorities created the police department here in washington, d.c. is continuing to investigate the crime and they have occurred here in washington said they are taking a close look at it. the controversy about whether the outgoing president made the appointment that the justices breyer and leto pointed out that the court got along very well with the numbers and cited the extended absence of justice robert jackson 1945 through 46 as the prosecutor in the hearings.

that would seem to contradict the administration's case that you needed nine justices on the court. >> you say the administration case you are referring to the ronald reagan administration case? president reagan said it he would also hope that the senate expeditiously is able to conduct its business for the full complement of the nine justices. but every day that it attaches below the full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body. they are able to act promptly to consider and confirm the president's nominee to fill the vacancy on the subpoena court and that president ronald reagan made back in 1987.