additionally we will continue what we've already started fiscal you're 16, giving radio out, hand-held readers to our individual employers which will be state of the art with a lot of new features. the coverage will be better using these radios. but maybe more importantly we did a survey from the national capital region where typically the president has defense visits or motorcade routes and where are those dead spots? with help of our washington field office we identified these locations and we're going to add additional 56 repeaters and transmitters throughout the national capital region. that has an impact on how these hand-held radios work. so that's a big plus for us as well. >> could you talk a little bit about what the status of radios and read assistance or for the field offices? >> that will also be included in this funding. for example, i went out to chicago to talk to the field office and around the field offices.

in this effort to try to make it was our workforce, i can't get out to everyone so i've gone to doing some videos in pushing out videos we have new policies or state of the service for for example, we released about a month and a half ago. but because of the bandwidth and some of the smaller offices they have not been able to see some of these messages. funding will help us with the bandwidth so we can get more of this come to a better job than me getting not only our messages but it helps us with our security. we've got to a better infrastructure out there as we expand from our larger field offices into the surrounding communities. >> last year improvements to the current, i'm going back to the white house fence, the improvements that were completed with interim solution as i understand it, and it was designed to make it more difficult to scale the fence and give officers on the white is to a critical few extra seconds to respond.

can you describe the improvements to the current fans and whether they are working more or less as expected? and what are the plans and a schedule for completing a new and permanent that's? >> yes. the interim measure was placed on the white house fence in july of 2015. we knew that was going to be and end all, obviously, but it was going to buy us some time if someone did attempt to jump the fence. since we put that up there with that one fence jumper over the north fence, and we think it is a deterrent and i to make it to shut because we don't know who as an attempt to go over the fence here but one individual did get over the fence and he was immediately contained just on the other side of the fence. but moving forward, the permanent fence, it's very complex and is a lengthy process. we know that whatever fence we put in there has to last 100 years. when the going to get another

opportunity to do this. we could do it and just put up a higher fence, maybe a 10-foot fence, but it's not enough? maybe you need a 12-foot and. is 12 feet in a? we've got to do more studying with that. there's other areas in a classified setting i can talk about what we want to do something with the fence, but also a more comprehensive look at what we're doing at the white house and the perimeter. the perimeter as you know, everyday, just last week have a buffer as you know, you've walked in front of the white house. we have a bike rack there and it's been a good help to us. we know people can get over the bike rack but it gives us an early warning someone has bad intentions. just last week we had an individual who would over the bike rack and we immediately, because we've add additional post, we contend that individual fighter before they could get to the fence. in terms of the timeline, 2017 will still be used to design and do some more research on the

type of fence that we need. 2018 is when we expect to be able to put a shovel on the ground and start to build a more permanent fence. i can save even last week we met with the national planning commission and the commission on fine arts. they feel the same urgency we do to get this thing, this project completed. but we have to do it right, and that's where we are. 2018 actually getting into the ground i think. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. price. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director, i'd like to address your relationship within science and technology directorate. the secret service relies heavily on your colleagues in the directorate to develop and validate tools you on your agents used in the field every day. unlike some of your other dhs counterparts, counterpart agencies, that have their in house research capabilities, you

are more dependent on the department's research and testing capability which are you the tools and resources needed to carry out your mission. could you speak to that, to the way you work with the value add of that important relationship? and help patchwork of the typical your mission with a different thing to science and technology part of? >> we have a good relationship with smt directorate and teachers. they are director very recently came down to the widest conflict and we gave him a full tour of our facility and what we have in place. we worked with them. one of the bigger problems today is the u.s., the drones. we worked with them as well as other partners outside of dhs to try to come up with the best detection systems as well as medication. so this is a critical issue, the drug issue, for both dhs, science and technology, as well as us.

there are numerous meetings between s&t come and our technical department director at. >> on federal issue, you catch my attention. what is the secret services particular take on that issue? how does it relate to the involvement of other agencies? how would you describe that? >> it's a problem for everyone. >> i realized that. that's why i asked. >> it's a challenge for all of us. faa is taking a role with education. we have to educate the public and ensure that they know areas that they cannot fly these uass and unmanned aerial devices. we've worked with the department

of defense because they have a lot of experience certainly out in a wartime zone. our challenges are a little unique because we are in an urban environment. some of the things they can do to mitigate and detect the drones in a military environment are different than we have here in an urban environment where you have to be concerned about the public and, of course, public buildings and so on. the technological is where we are working very closely and sharing. that's the important thing here i think is that there is a sharing of ideas. there's no holding back. in fact, just a couple of weeks ago might assistant director in technology informed me that they're working with the germans now to see what they have out there and the sharing of ideas. i know the blue ribbon panel talked about how insular we are but we've made a committed effort to make sure that we branched out, that we see all the good work that's being done out there and science and

technology and dhs i was doing the same. we are getting the best advice we get. >> but on the ground in a specific setting, a permanent setting like the white house or special event setting, assume those words detection and mitigation are shorthand for whole range of activities. to what extent does the secret service take on an independent or a proactive responsibility for this? >> into specifics with regards to measure map in place, i was a gun science and technology it also affects our staff that on the ground to our uniformed officers. they are trained on what to look for you if they see a drone in the air, what do they look for? how do they respond to get? and also are protected details, whether it be in the white house or on a trip in some other cities throughout the country. they have specific protocols if one of these devices is in the air.

>> i have another minute, could you return to s&t? or you can do this for the record. on the other particular areas of collaboration where you are dependent on s&t and, therefore, s&p funding to support your own mission? >> in terms of s&p funding i will have to get back to you on that, but i will say that everything from our enhancements with cbr detection out at the white house to enhancements of our perimeter defenses but we work with s&t d.c. with the best types of systems that are out there, x-rays, et cetera. we will work with s&t. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. cuellar. >> i live on the border represent a large chunk of the border so we understand what's happening across. we spent badly about $18 billion

when you can when everything on border security north, south, a lot of money. so we play defense on the one yard line, what i call the one yard line. i would rather play defense on their 20-yard line instead of our one yard line. so the more we can do to work with the republic of mexico, and i believe the secretary is here, i will be here with secretary johnson. and i appreciate the work that they're doing and whatever we can do with our central american and other latin american countries with the dude. could you tell us what your efforts are in particular what you're doing with keeping that in mind, moving the defense a little more the more we can do in those countries that it is. what we'r we are doing with the republic of mexico and central america to address some of this transnational problems that we are seeing right now of? >> i would just say that we have again a terrific relationship with the government of mexico. we have an agent, an office in

mexico city's biggest i'm sorry. just one agent speak with i believe it is one agent, yes. and i -- i'm sorry, congressman, i don't know that number offhand. i'll get it to you. i will say that just recently we've had reason to work with election of it. they have the popes visit in juárez, and they did a tremendous job knowing that we experienced the popes visit in the fall. we offered any advice they may want, and we did talk to, we sent our agents down there to talk to them, give our experiences. but again i to say that the mexicans did a terrific job with protection of the pope just a couple of months ago. >> again i would ask you to institutionalize the working relationship with the republic of mexico and central america. again, the more we can do outside the one yard line

defense, the better it is. i encourage you to do as much as you can under our tight budget that we have the etiquette i appreciate, i know that coulter has been hard. we talked about a lot. i know chairman carter and ended of the committee, we talked a lot about it, and i know there's still much about incidents but keep addressing the culture within the secret service because you have a lot of good men and women working in our government, so i appreciate that. and the final point because i know you've got to go, but the last point is, the hiring process him and i know this has been an issue with homeland, takes a long time. you start off with jobs.com and then you go through the process. i understand from the earlier testimony you have been reducing debt. so no more you can keep working on that the better it is just that people say i'm not going to wait a year or a year and a half. by that time they move onto something else.

to would've you can do to shorten it up to up i really would appreciate it. >> i'll just comment on that one item. we have instituted a we call entry-level assessment centers where we'll bring in these candidates in yemen interview, give them a test to pass the test and a super interview and then schedule polygraph in the very near future is not that we can. so we are condensing it. >> keep working with the hispanic institutions and the black universities also and other places of course, that there's pools of qualified individuals that you can start them as interns and move them onto. thank you so much. my time is up. >> well, director, i think we will end of this hearing now that you have done a great job. we thank you for the great service you've done here lately. we are really proud of you. keep it up. keep up the good work. i compliment the surface, and thank them for their good job.

>> thank you, thank you come and treachery thank you. i want to commend your stats as well. we want to be as transparent we want to be transparent and your staffs every patient with us as we've gotten are structured together this first year. my thanks to you and your staffs. >> will continue to work together for the betterment of everyone. thank you, sir. we are adjourned. >> [inaudible conversations] >> the u.s. senate today continues work on genetically modified food labeling legislation. the bill would prevent states from setting their own labeling requirements for bioengineered foods, and instead have a department of agriculture set national voluntary food labeling

standards. at 11:45 a.m. eastern the senate will vote on whether to move forward with consideration of the bill. also this morning we are expecting senators to speak on the floor about president obama's supreme court nominee. the president is announcing his nominee at 11 a.m. eastern and you can see that live on c-span3. right now he on c-span2, the u.s. senate. senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. sovereign lord, you are our strong shelter and hiding place. we praise you for your love and wisdom. lord, you are too wise to make a

mistake, too loving to be unkind, and too powerful for your providence not to prevail. we're grateful that you have the final word about what happens in our world, so teach us to patiently wait for your will to be done. guide our lawmakers, giving them a clear comprehension of your plans for our nation and world. as they depend upon your wisdom, fill them with the courage to accomplish those things that will unite rather than divide us. inspire us all to experience the

constancy of your presence. we pray in your holy name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: as we all know the president will be making ab

announcement this morning on the supreme court. i'll have more to say about take later this morning. but as for the legislation currently before the senate, the senate will resume its consideration of bipartisan legislation aimed at protecting middle-class families from unfair higher food prices. it's a common sense solution found on science-based standards. let's advance it together and if colleagues have other ideas on the issue, i would again encourage them to work with the bill managers to process any alternative solutions they may have. now, mr. president, i understand there's a bill at the desk that's due a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 2686, a bill to clarify the treatment of two or more employers as joint employers under the national labor relations act. mr. mcconnell: in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would reject to further

proceedings. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: in just a few minutes, the president is going to officially announce his nominee to the unction supreme court. -- to the united states supreme court. considering the nomination of the highest court in the nomination, the president would adhere to three important prince els. number one, the nominee has equal cases, credentials. that means an outstanding education, judicial experience and an expert understanding of the law. second, the nominee should have a keen awareness of the judiciary's role. that means understanding the court's constitutional place in our government and its limitations. third and finally, the life experience. qualified supreme court justice is someone with the understanding of the realities americans face each and every

day. i have no idea how hard this must have been for the president. i have no doubt that president obama's nominee possesses these important attributes that i just outlined. once president obama has done his constitutional duty and announced publicly this nominee, we'll then -- it will then fall upon the senate to provide its advice and consent. for a hundred years we've had these hearings in public going back to justice brandeis' hearing. the republican leaders made it clear that he and his caucus have no intention of considering the nominee. it's hard to comprehend but that's what he said. and it appears basically all republicans fall in line with this. i hope that president obama's nomination of an exceptionally qualified nominee will present republicans to change course. dow hope they will do their constitutional duty and give president obama's nominee a

meeting, a hearing, and a vote. he's doing his job this morning. the republicans should do theirs from this point forward. mr. president, would you announce what we're going to do the rest of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the house message to accompany s. 764 which the clerk will 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. the presiding officer: under the previous order the time till 11:45 a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders are a their designees. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president, i ask for a suspension of the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you very much. mr. president, i rise today to express my disappointment that we have not yet been able to come to an agreement on the issue of g.m.o. labeling. mrs. shaheen: senator roberts and i have a long history and a friendship in working together, and we have both worked very, very hard to come to an agreement on extremely difficult and emotional issue. i want to thank him for his continual work and i'm forever

the opt mist that we will get there, even though we are not there yet. we have continued to work, i continue to work and my team to find common ground all the way until very late last night. and if we at this point do not proceed but can have some more time, i believe it is possible for us to come together in a bipartisan solution. while this debate has been difficult, there are some important areas where senator roberts and i agree. for instance, senator roberts and i agree that the science has shown us that biotechnology is safe. in fact, leading health organizations like the american medical association, the national academy of sciences, the f.d.a., and the world health organization all say that

there's no evidence that g.m.o.'s aren't safe. we agree that biotechnology is an important tool for farmers and ranchers. particularly as we tackle the challenges of climate change, which by the way science also tells us is real, and i believe in science, and i would love if we would all come together around the science on both of these issues. and we have to tackle the need to feed a growing hungry world. and we agree that a 50-state patchwork of labeling laws is not a workable long-term solution. in fact, i don't know any member on any side of this issue here in the senate that doesn't agree with that, that we have to have a national approach, not 50 different states.

but we also, mr. president, know, as we have frequently debated states' rights, the importance of states to make decisions, that when we preempt states -- whether it is on fuel efficiency standards for automobiles or whether it's on food labeling -- that the approach has always been to go from 50 different states doing 50 different things to having a national standard and a national approach. and, as with the area of cafe standards, where i was very involved, it's important that it works from an industry standpoint. and so i think -- i know it can be done, and it's our job to get to that point. we also recognize, though, that a growing number of american consumers want to know more about the food they eat. and they have the right to know.

they have the right to know what is in their food. i was very proud of the fact that we came together in the last farm bill to recognize all parts of agriculture, the fastest-growing part of agriculture is the organic sector. and we gave more opportunities to support the organic sector, the local food movement. people should have choices in deciding what food they eat, how it's grown, how it's processed, and that's something that we have said in national policy that we support through our agricultural policies. unfortunately, the senate is poised to vote on a bill that i do not support, that does not fully answer this demand for consumers. consumers want information about the food they eat.

it's as simple as that. in fact, the bill continues the status quo on providing information to consumers. it lists a number of things, many of which are already being done -- 1-800 numbers and so on. look at the back of the pack. so it lists things, but it's things that are already being done so -- not all, but many -- enough -- and then says, we'll keep the status quo nationally, but we will preempt the states and citizens around the country from taking individual actions. i don't support that. that is not good enough. it doesn't reflect what we do when we are talking about federal policy. that's one reason why i think the approach put forward in the bill just is the wrong path. now, unfortunately, we have seen

a lot of emotion around this issue on both sides, a lot of emotion. and, frankly, there's a lot of confusion about g.m.o.'s and their safety. which is why, i think, again, this approach is the wrong approach. we should be telling the story, as should farmers, the story of biotechnology and the importance that it plays in our food production and in food security. we should not be taking action that further appears to stop consumers from getting the information they want and feeding into the idea that there's something wrong, there's a reason to hide -- because there is not. we should embrace this opportunity to share with the public what is in our food, talk about it, why we use these crops, why they are deemed safe. that's why during the last several months of negotiations

with chairman roberts, i've offered several proposals that would shed light on this issue and do it in a way that is eminently workable for those involved in the food industry. while these proposals were not ultimately accepted, i still believe we need and can achieve a policy that creates a uniform national system of disclosure for the use of g.m.o. ingredients and do it in a way that has common sense and works for everybody. the national disclosure system needs to provide real options for disclosing information about g.m.o.'s that work for both consumers and food companies. i believe we must create a system that provides certainty as well to our food companies, all of our companies -- natural,

organic, traditional companies. everyone knows that a 50-state system with 50 different definitions and 50 different laws and 50 different ways to do packaging doesn't work. so we all have a need to come together and to fix this. and i also believe that a system must work for all companies -- very small companies, medium-sized, and the large companies as well. and i believe we must not harm the important work being done by our organic producers. and, again, we made great strides in the farm bill. the we need to keep the choices -- we need to keep the choices available to consumers that are in the marketplace now and not pass something that will infringe on any of the choices that consumers have. i am disappointed that we've not

yet been able to come to a clear consensus on the issue of g.m.o. labeling. while i know this issue is contentious, as i said, it is very emotional on all sides. as far as i'm concerned, it's time for us to come together on a thoughtful commonsense approach that's best for consumers, for farmers, for families, and for our country. you know, we have the most successful agricultural system, food economy in the world. we are the envy of the world, and we want to make sure whatever we do we maintain that position. but part of who we are in america is a country that believes in people's right to

know information, you know, to make their own individual choices. and so i believe there is a way to do this, to make sure we continue to have the strongest, most vibrant, most successful and robust agricultural economy and food economy in the world. we are lurltly feeding the world -- we are literally feeding the world. and at that time be able to provide basic information that american consumers are asking to have provided. i'll not be supporting senator roberts' amendment. and, again, he and i -- i think it may be the first time in the years we've worked together, both with me as chair and now with him as chair, that we have not come to the floor united. it's not for lack of trying. we've been working very hard. and there are differences. but i believe that if we have the opportunity to keep working, that weapon be able to get to

that spot where we can come together. so, as i urge colleagues to oppose this proposal and moving forward with cloture without having an agreement, i also como continue to working to get there because we have to take action to solve this problem, and it has to be done in a bipartisan way. that's how we get things done. and i'm committed to continuing to work with our chairman and with members on both sides of the aisle so that we can do that. thank you, mr. president. ms. murkowski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, i rise this morning to discuss an issue that is pretty near and dear to my heart and i think to

the heart of many throughout the state of alaska, and that is -- i'll just call it an aberration, an abeer rawings i-- an aberrath world. and what i'm talking about is genetically engineered salmon, g.e. salmon. we just heard from the ranking member on the agriculture committee. i appreciate the work she's done, along with the senator from kansas, to forge a path forward on g.m.o. when we talk about genetically engineered salmon, we're talking about two very distinct and different issues here. this is separate from the larger g.m.o. debate. genetically engineered animals are not crops, and g.e. salmon is a genetically engineered

animal. this is something entirely new. this is a new species. this is a new species that will be introduced -- potentially introduced into our markets, into our homes, and quite possibly contrary to what any environmental analysis claims enters into our ecosystem. so when we're talking about the g.m.o., the broader g.m.o. debate here on the floor, keep in mind that when i stand up, when the other senator from alaska stands up, when alaskans stand up to talk about genetically engineered salmon, we're talking about an entirely different issue. now, i get pretty wound up about this issue. i just came from a meeting of young people, about 20 young alaskans from around the state of the and i said, i'm sorry, i

have to leave because i've got to go to the floor to speak to this issue that is so important to us in alaska. and i said, do you all know what genetically engineered salmon? and they're like, yeah, it's kind of that fake fish. it's that franken fish is what we call it. because it is so unnatural, it is so unnatural that, again, it's something that as alaskans we need to stand up and defend against. i grie up i -- i grew up in the state of alaska. i know alaska well. i also well know the immense value of our fisheries and the potential for havoc that something like this frankenfish could wreak upon our wild, sustainable stocks. and so i'm standing here this morning saying that i will not be supporting cloture on this bill, as it's an issue that is

just too important to so many and has not yet been adequately addressed. i have attempted to work with the chairman and the committee to offer a sensible and what wreebl are -- we believe are reasonable solutions. but no solution yet. so i am standing today, demanding, asking that the voices of alaskans who have stood in solidarity on this issue stand with me. because we will not accept that genetically engineered salmon -- or frankenfish, whatever it is you want to call it -- we will not accept that it will be allowed to be sold without clear labeling, because i don't want to make any mistakes. i don't want to find that what i have served my family is a genetically engineered fish.

and i use "fish" lightly. you know, we talk about frankenfish -- and some people kind of snicker nervously -- but it's not a joke to alaskans. this "new species" could pose a serious threat to the livelihoods of alaskan fishermen, and i will stand to support the livelihood of alaskan fishermen. alaska's fisheries are world renowned for their high quality, sustainability. the alaska seafood industry supports more than 63,000 direct jobs and contributes over $4.6 billion to the state's economy, nearly one in seven alaskans are employed in the commercial seafood industry. it's how my boys put themselves through college was wokin -- wag in the commercial fishing industry.

my family for generations has been involved in one way, shape, or form with the fishing business. salmon is a major part of alaska's seafood economy and commercial fishermen around the state harvested more than 265 million salmon this past season, including chinook, sockeye, pink, all wild. as we all know, wild salmon, it is loaded with all the good things in it that god has placed there. tremendous health benefits. it is a lean protein source of omega-36789's, all good. all in that natural wild package. more unanimous 1.5 million people -- more than 1.5 million people wrote into the f.d.a. opposing approval of genetically engineered salmon. so you have groundswell of support around the country. this is not just from alaskans weighing in but people saying no we don't think this should be

approved. f.d.a. went ahead anyway. then you've got a growing number of grocery stores, safeway, kroeger, alcohol foods, trader joe's, target, they all announced they're not going to sell this genetically engineered species in their stores and yet despite this immense opposition, in november of last year, the f.d.a. approved aqua bounty technology's application for its genetically engineered aqua advantage salmon. so for those of you that are not fully informed on what this genetically engineered fish is, how it comes about, g.e. salmon starts from a transgenic atlantic salmon egg. what happens -- this is an ocean pout. it is a type of an eel. as you can see it doesn't look anything like a salmon, even if you don't know your salmon very

well. this is a bottom dwelling ocean pout eel. they take d.n.a., a splice of d.n.a. from this, a splice of d.n.a. from a magnificent tha shanook salmon and splice it into an atlantic salmon egg. and that egg is meant to produce a fish that will grow to full size twice as fast as a normal atlantic salmon. so this is the push here, to push mother nature who creates a perfectly beautiful, fabulous salmon and to take a splice of d.n.a. here, a splice of d.n.a. there, put it into an atlantic salmon which is a farm fish and grow it so that it grows twice as fast as a normal fish. but growing it in a penned condition and theoretically so

that there is no way for escape but can we guarantee that there is no way for escape? i don't know. show me that. but what we have here i think is a fair question as to whether or not this g.e. salmon can even be called a salmon. so f.d.a. signs off on this last november but they made no mandatory labeling requirement. instead they said labels can be voluntary. so in other words if you want to say that this piece of fish that is in front of you is genetically engineered or not real, you can voluntarily put that on your label. nobody is going to do that. nobody is going to voluntarily say this is genetically engine engineered. so what we have done, what i have done is to fight to secure a mandatory labeling requirement both before approval of aqua

bounty's application and since its approval. so we've been working hard on this issue and we made some significant headway. but what we're dealing with on the floor right now, this legislation would wipe that work clean instead of using legislative tools at our disposal to effectively and precisely amend this legislation in order to address the issue of g.e. salmon. so what we did is we got some language in the omnibus appropriations bill that requires the f.d.a. to not allow the introduction of any food that contains g.e. salmon until it publishes final labeling guidelines that inform consumers of that content. and so what this did, this kind of forced f.d.a. to issue an import alert which effectively bans all import of genetically engineered salmon for one year

but it also directs the f.d.a. to spend funds, significant funds on no less than $150,000 to develop labeling guidelines and to implement a program to disclose to consumers whether salmon offered for sale to consumers is genetically engineered. again, what we want to be able to do is let consumers know whether this fish is genetically engineered or not. so we thought that this was -- that that was a pretty clear labeling mandate to the f.d.a. but f.d.a. then later came back to us and said that they felt there was still clarifying legislation that we needed to do. so i have worked with senator sullivan, my colleague from alaska, as well as the two -- as well as senator cant cantwell, merkley and have the salmon act.

we introduced a separate piece of legislation to respond to f.d.a.'s november approval and introduced s. 2640, the genetically engineered salmon labeling act. and what that bill would do is kind of build on last year's omnibus provisions and would require labeling of genetically engineered salmon through language that i received through technical assistance working with the f.d.a. on this. additionally, we would mandate a third-party scientific review of the f.d.a.'s environmental assessment of aqua advantage salmon and the effects that these g.e. salmon would have on wild stocks and ecosystems which in my opinion and i think the opinion of many others was insufficiently addressed during the f.d.a.'s environmental assessment. so we've been working with the f.d.a. on this to develop this language, to mandate labeling,

and the f.d.a. has been cooperative at this point working on this issue. and that really is a significant step forward. but it required me to do something which maybe others are perhaps a little more active but to place a hold on a nominee. i placed a hold on the f.d.a. commissioner dr. robert califf. this is not something i do lightly. i have not placed a hold on a nominee before. i don't take this action lightly. but it was necessary. it was necessary to bring to the attention of the f.d.a. the significance of this issue and the seriousness of what we were dealing with. and so we got f.d.a. to the table. we've been working with them. they've been listening. they've been helpful, and we are so close to resolving this and now we are on the floor with a g.m.o. legislation which again, as i said at the outset, g.m.o.

is different than what we're dealing with this genetically engineered species, a knew species designed -- a new species designed for human consumption here. my concern is that with the g.m.o. bill before us now, it really does threaten the good progress that we have made to this point in time, and it's not just the progress that the alaska delegation made but really the work of so many alaskans, the bipartisan hard-working efforts of so many around the country who share the same concerns. i think we've offered some pretty sensible solutions, and i will continue to offer them. i will continue my efforts to work with the chairman who i have great respect for and know that while it's not opposition to the overall bill or its

underpinnings where my concern remains, it is mistakenly allowing genetically engineered salmon into our homes mislabeled as salmon. so this is something that we will continue to raise the awareness, raise the issue until we have finally and fully resolved it. mr. president, i -- if i still have a few minutes more time this morning, i'd like to switch topics and speak about the last great race, the last great race in alaska and really around the world is the idatarod sled race. a 1,049-mile race from south central alaska to nome, alaska

where man and dog teams are up against mother nature in probably one of the most incredible human and animal endeavors that is out there. yesterday we saw the conclusion or we greeted the front runner to the 44th idatarod sled dog race. so for 44 years now an amazing race from willow to nome. again when you think about man and dog out on the ice, out in the raw wilderness for a thousand miles, it's been -- this race has been -- it's been described as the equivalent of an attempt at mt. everest. when you think about all that is

alaska and the open spaces and the independent people and just man against nature or woman against nature, it's really the idatarod that epitomizes so much of it. it demands not only the most out of our athletes but mental conditioning as well. it requires exceptional endurance, courage, sound judgment as you navigate these amazing places. but it's not just the men or women that are the physical athletes. it is not just their judgment that guides this race. it's that of the teams, the dogs themselves. and when you think about again the amazing teamwork that goes on between a musher and his or

her animals, the communication, the will to go a thousand-plus miles in extraordinary conditions, it really is something that just stirs the greatest imagination. we have had idatarods where teams have literally buried into the wind coming at them 50 miles an hour, 30 below in the dark, attacks by moose on the trail, losing the trail, accidents, disasters. it's -- i was going to say it's like a reality tv show only it's not a reality tv show. it's what alaskans and many around the world engage in. the mushers themselves are remarkable. and i could stand here on the floor and talk all morning about them but i won't.

i'll highlight a few of them. d.d. john row is a long friend of mine. she ran her 34th idatarod this year. and you talk about bravery and perseverance. this is a woman who last year or the year before last lost her father. this summer she and her husband lost everything that they owned in a wildfire out in willow, alaska. the only thing that were saved were her dogs, but she lost her sleds, her harnesses, her home, her everything. and then just shortly after that she lost her mother. and her comment to me was i'm going to go back on the trail so i can just focus. that's one tough woman. brent sass is a guy who captured the lead for much of the race. he's one of these guys that came to alaska to be a homesteader, a wilderness guide. he was clampion of the yukon

quest. he rescues mushers along the way. an amazing guy. he was actually in front position last year and was disqualified because he had an ipod. he was listening to music but along the trail there's no electronic devices. pretty tough rules in the idatarod. can you imagine being out on a thousand-mile trail not with anybody else and no device, no electronic device for you. jeff king, an amazing guy who's grit and determination has been at the forefront of this race and in so many others, a multiple winner. but he was involved with a horribly tragic accident when a snow machiner, a drunk individual literally attacked his team, killed one of his dogs, injured a couple others,

and extraordinarily difficult to handle that challenge, the emotion of losing a dog but also just the real tragedy and calamity of an accident like that. jeff has finished the race in the top ten which is remarkable. another remarkable feat, though, is ellie zirkle who finished third and was also subject to an extreme scare by this same snow machiner, horribly tragic side to this year's idatarod but the fact that ali, one tough lady, came in third, persevering all the way getting her head into the game. so many stories about these amazing men and women. but the winner, the winner of this year's idatarod is a young man, dallas, 29 years old. he crossed the finish line into nome at 2:20 a.m. last night or

the night before last. dallas finished in eight days, 11 hours, 20 minutes, and 16 seconds. this is his -- this is his fourth overall win, third consecutive. he's only one victory away from matching the five-time champion rick swenson. here is the rest of the story and i am going to finish up. number two in the iditarod, trailing dallas by less than an hour. who is it? it's his dad. number one, number two in the eyiditarod, a father and a son. what other sport can you think of where you have a father and a son competing against one another and coming in first and second? you got to go back a ways to think about that. so it was absolutely an amazing

story, and alaskans watched it play out. i had an opportunity to visit with the father of mitch seavey, number two, and the grandfather of dallas sea vey, number one. dan, who you predict is going to win the iditarod this year? his comment was, i don't care. as long as it was a seavey. alaskans are proud of the men and women who take on these extraordinary challenges, capture the attention and the facination of the world with their feats of physical endurance and mental endurance. the men and women of the 44th annual iditarod race are to be commended and congratulated. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor.

mr. roberts: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: thank you, mr. president. i would like to start off my remarks with regards to the bill that is before us. there is an article from the

"hill" newspaper. and it is quoting julie borlog, who is the granddaughter of norman borlog, a graduate of the university of oklahoma, who sparked the green revolution credited from saving more than 1 billion people from dying from hunger. she said "i am glad to see my grandfather's work praised." that was by the distinguished senator from minnesota, senator klobuchar. she goes ton shea that the senate agriculture committee chairman pat roberts has put forward a bipartisan proposal that would establish national standards for foods made with g.m.o.'s. it would prevent a costly state-by-state patchwork of labeling mandates. it would also help ensure that

greater information goes hand in hand with providing information on a national level about the use of g.m.o. crops. that the the more pertinent question is whether farmers and ranchers will be allowed to use these technologies. i ask that it article be put in the record just prior to my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: mr. president, i rise again to discuss my amendment, number 3450, on biotechnology labeling solutions. now, there's been a lot of discussion about this amendment and this topic in general. that is a good thing. we should be talking about our food. we should be talking about our farmers and producers, and we should be talking about our

consumers as well. it's important, extremely important to have an honest discussion and an open exchange with dialogue. after all, that is what we do here? the senate, or that's what we're supposed to do vmentz that's what we're doing here today, exercising our responsibility to cast a vote for what is in the best interest of those who sent us here. so let's start with discussing difficult issues. the basic issue at hand is agriculture biotechnology labeling. well, mr. president, if you've heard any of my previous remarks, you've heard me say time and time and time again that biotechnology products are safe but you don't have to take my word for it. the agriculture committee held a hearing late last year where all three agencies in charge of

reviewing biotechnology testified before our members. over and over again, the e.p.a., the f.d.a., and the usda -- all three -- told us that these products are safe. and that they are safe for the environment, safe for other planets -- plants, pardon me, and safe for our food supply. this is the gold standard on what is safe for agriculture biotechnology. not only are these products safe, but they also provide benefits to the entire value chain from producer producers to consumer. our farmers are able to grow more on less land using less water, less fuel, and less fertilizer. but the difficult issue that we are debating today is about more than recognizing the fact that biotechnology is safe. no, today our decision is about whether or not to prevent a

wrecking ball from hitting our entire food supply chain. the difficult issue for us to address is what to do about the patchwork of biotechnology labeling laws that will soon wreak havoc on the flow of interstate commerce, of agriculture, and food products in every supermarket, every grocery store up and down main street of every community in america. that is what this is about. it's not about safety. it's not about health. it's not about nutrition. it's all about marketing. what we face today is a handful of states, a handful of states, that have chosen to enact labeling standards on products. the impact of these decisions will be felt all across the country. those decisions impact the farmers in the fields who would be pressured to grow less efficient crops so manufacturers could avoid these demonizing labels.

those labeling laws will impact distributors who have to spend more money to sort different labels for different states. those labeling laws will ultimately impact consumers who will suffer from higher-priced food -- $1,050 for your average family of four. that's right. if we do nothing, it's not manufacturers who pay the ultimate price, it is the consumer. a study released this year found that changes in the production or labeling of most of the nation's food supply for a single state would impact citizens in each of our home states. the total annual increased cost of doing nothing today -- doing nothing today, not voting for cloture -- could be as much as $82 billion every year. that's a pretty costly cloture vote. that's $1,050 tacked onto each

family's grocery bill. that is a direct hit to their pocketbooks. let me repeat that. if we fail to act today, if we do not have cloture and get to this substitute bill -- or this compromise bill, the cost to consumers would total as much as $82 billion a year or $1,050 for hard-working american families. i don't think that's what my colleagues want. i don't think they want to be responsible for that. a cloture rot -- a cloture vote2 billion price dag? come on. so this is the difficult issue we must address and the question is, how do we fix it? that is why we have crafted a compromise solution, put it on the floor for debate, and action. the amendment before us today stops this wrecking ball before

anymore damage can be done. two weeks ago the agriculture committee passed a bill on a bipartisan vote 14-6 -- i'm very proud of that legislation; it stopped the state-by-state patchwork and provided a national voluntary standard for food products. for the first time the federal government would set a science-based standard allowing consumers the ability to demand the marketplace to provide more information, and consumers are growing more and more interested in their food, and that is a good thing. we as consumers should learn more about where our food comes from and what it takes to keep our food supply the safest and the most abundant and the most affordable in the world. however, the role of government in this space to ensure that information regarding safety, health, and nutritional value are expressed directly to consumers. but the information in question

today has nothing to do with safety or health or nutrition, so the responsibility and opportunity to inform the consumers falls on the marketplace. if consumers want more information, they demand it by voting with their pocketbooks in the aisles of the grocery store. now, as our bipartisan bill has come to the floor, i have heard krns that this voluntary standard was not enough for our consumers, so yet again we worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. the legislation before us goes further than the committee-passed bill. this legislation addresses concerns with a voluntary-only approach by providing an incentive for the marketplace to provide consumers with more information. so to my friends on this side of the aisle, this legislation allows the market to work. to my friends on that side of the aisle, if the marketplace

does not live up to their commitments, if information is not made available to consumers, then this legislation holds the markets accountable by instituting a mandatory standard. and not just any mandatory standard, mr. president. it's a standard that provides the same options and mechanisms for compliance as outlined -- stated publicly by our secretary of agriculture, tom vilsack. simply put, the legislation before us provides us an immediate and comprehensive solution to the unworkable state-by-state patchwork of labeling laws. now, as chairman of a committee, the sometimes powerful senate agriculture committee, i believe this is a true compromise. and, like any bill, it is not perfect. i know that. but to those who criticize this

legislation in one breath and yet say they want a compromise with the next, i ask, where is your plan? where is your solution? we've heard the distinguished senator from oregon many times on this floor -- not a stranger to this floor -- criticizing this compromise, and i appreciate -- i'm sure we all appreciate his passion. i disagree with his views, but i appreciate that he did put his plan into a bill and put it out for public debate. what i don't understand is why he doesn't want to vote on it. why do you put a bill out there and then decide that you're not going to vote on it? why would you not vote to cloture so you could get a vote to your bill? when he prpbtsed to tak -- whend with an option to vote, he declined. irread the press release describing this as the statusio. this compromise achieves just the opposite.

in fact, voting "no" today is the only way that maintains the status quo. voting "no" today does nothing to stop the wrecking ball. voting "no" today ensures that the instability in the marketplace continues. voting "no" today puts farmers and all of agricultural risk. voting "no" today negatively impacts the daily lives of everybody in the food chain. from the farmer who will be pressured to plant fence row to fence row of a crop that is less efficient to the grain elevator that will have to adjust storage options to separate types of grain to the manufacturer who will need different labels for different states, to the distributor who will need expanded storage for sorting. and to the retailer who may be unable to afford offering low-cost private label products. and finally, to the consum conso

will be forced to pay the additional cost to the tune of $82 billion. so now we come to our final task as an ee -- as elected officials of this body taking a vote, but before we do, we should all know that never before, never before in my experience as chairman of the house ag committee and chairman of the senate agriculture committee and all the years i have had the privilege to serve on both committees, we have never seen a bill in the agriculture committee with so much support, never, over 800 organizations. all across the food and agriculture spectrum, 800, 800 organizations who have a stake in this bill. it's at the national, state and local levels. they all support the bill. the bill has the support of the national association of state departments of agriculture, the american farm bureau, many, many more. virtually every farm group is in town. just talked to the american

soybean association this past week. one farmer stood up and said hey, if i cannot have agriculture biological crops with regards to increasing the yield that i plant, what am i going to do? i'm going to plant fence row to fence row? am i going to lose in this situation when farm income is declining and farm credit is getting tighter? the fundamental role of the agriculture committee is to protect america's farmers and ranchers who provide a safe, abundant and affordable food supply to a very troubled and hungry world. so i will be voting yes to do just that and i encourage my colleagues to do the same. voting no today means telling your constituents next week that you are raising their grocery bill by over $1,000.

good luck with that. this is a pretty simple vote. you're either for agriculture or you're not. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. a senator: mr. president, later this morning we continue to work on whether or not to consider a food labeling bill here in the senate. mr. donnelly: as a dad, i know this bill is about much more than just words or symbols on a label. it's about the confidence we have in the food we eat and the food we feed our children. as a hoosier, i also know this bill is about preserving confidence in a long and proud indiana tradition of growing the food that feeds our communities and provides a safe and reliable

food supply for the world. whether you're a parent or a farmer or a republican or democrat, our objectives in this debate should be the same, so provide consumers with access to accurate information about the food we eat and to do so in a way that does not mislead consumers into falsely thinking their food is unsafe. i believe strongly consumers, our families, our kids, moms and dads, brothers and sisters deserve to feel confident in the food we feed our families. i want to know how much sugar is in my ice cream and how many calories are in that roast beef sandwich that i love so much. and it's clear from this debate that many americans want to know even more about where and how our food is being produced.

i believe we should have that information and it should be easy to find. it's also common sense this information should be delivered in a way that is fair, in a way that's objective, in a way that's based on sound science. i've heard from many hoosier farmers who are very concerned that some labels or symbols on packages would amount in consumers' minds to warning labels and could send a misleading message that the safe and healthy products our farmers grow. think of sweet corn in our fields are somehow unhealthy or even dangerous. this morning my good friend senator tom carper from delaware and i filed an amendment that builds off the framework of the proposal before us today.

a framework i first suggested in the ag committee markup of this very bill. it creates a national voluntary bioengineered food labeling standard. it stipulates that if food companies fail to make sufficient information available, then a national food labeling standard for bioengineering becomes mandato mandatory. our amendment works for farmers. it works for manufacturers. and it works for our families. it establishes ambitious goals for the availability of information related to bioengineering by requiring that after three years 80% of the food products covered by the legislation would provide direct access to information. if the food industry does not meet this threshold, then the

labeling requirement becomes mandatory. our amendment also requires clear and direct access to information on bioengineering. this could include explicit disclosures like organic or g.m.o. free or voluntarily disclosing bioengineering on the box or companies choosing to participate in the voluntary program could use various electronic methods of disclosure, like a website or a q.r. code in conjunction with a phone number that clearly indicates to consumers, to our families where they can find more information and provides direct access to that information. this is important because our shared goal is to provide direct access to information about the contents of our food to

everyone, whether you have access to the internet or a smartphone or a regular phone. so let me repeat. our amendment allows for electronic disclosure to be used only in conjunction with a phone number and both methods would have to provide direct access to information on the product's contents. finally, our amendment preserves state consumer protection laws and remedies. states write laws to protect our citizens from mislabeled products and to provide for remedies in case of false or misleading statements. our amendment preserves those laws. consumers, our families, farmers and food producers are looking

to the senate for leadership. after months of discussion, we have been unable to agree yet on a proposal that gives consumers the information they want in a responsible way. but the issue remains. this will be another week of uncertainty for producers, for manufacturers, and for our families who do not have the information they want, and for the producers and manufacturers i mentioned who don't know what's expected of them. i'm going to continue to work on this issue with senator roberts and senator stabenow, and i strongly encourage all my colleagues to consider the ideas that senator carper and i have put forward and to try to work with us to find a solution that works for america. thank you, mr. president. i yield back.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. a senator: how much time remains? the presiding officer: 21 minutes. a senator: thank you very much, mr. president. i'm rising to speak to this issue from a simple american citizen point of view. mr. merkley: the american citizen wants the right to know what's in their food. they want to know how many calories. they want to know what the middles are and what the vitamins are and what the ingredients are. it's a simple standard because it's so important to an individual what you're putting in your mouth, what you're putting on the table for your family and your children. now, this is a principle that we have honored time and time again on our packages. we proceed to put on our package whether fish is farm raised or wild caught because citizens wanted to know. it makes a difference to them. it's their choice. it's their judgment. we put on our packages whether juice is from concentrate or juice is fresh because citizens wanted to know. it's important to them.

it's their right to know. we put the list of ingredients on the package in a simple format not so that someone can spend an hour trying to research what's in it. no, we have a simple one-second test. you pick up the food off the counter. you turn it over. you look at the list of ingredients and you say a ha, this has the vitamin c i wanted. this has the calories i wanted. the one-second test. now, that's what's at stake right here. because the bill that's before us right now kills the one-second test. it kills immediate access to information for consumers. it says we are going to eviscerate states' rights to respond to this desire of citizens to know what's in their food. now, this is a desire that stretches all across the united states, all genders, all innings, all party -- all ages, all parties. in fact, nine out of ten americans say they want this simple information on the package to meet this 1% test

just like calories. now, here we are in this deeply divided nation, this nation in which we see in this presidential campaign extremes to the left, to the right and everything in between and we wonder what's happening. is there anything we can agree on? well, the fascinating thing is here's something we can agree on. 80-plus percent in every category, 80-plus percent republicans, democrat, independents, almost all of them near the nine out of ten factor. women over 80%, men over 80%, young over 80%, old over 80%. in other words, all of those are between 89%, no matter who you are, where you are, what your gender is, how old you are, nine out of ten americans, they want to know what is on -- is in their food and they want it easily accessible on the package. now, my colleague talked about direct access to information.

in this case direct access is somewhat of a term subject to interpretation because to the consumer direct access is a one-second test. i pick up the package. i flip it over. 390 calories. thank you very much. done. but the term today is being used for indirect access. and let's look at these different hall of mirrors proposals that are being put forward. okay. sham number one, 800 number. there's an 800 number on the package. what is the purpose of that 800 number? the package doesn't say. there's 800 numbers on all kinds of packages. you call up the company and complain because there's contamination in your frozen peas. what is the purpose of it? is it so you can call the company and ask about new products coming out? without any information around it, it's just a number and citizens don't just go to a product and call a number. why? because they're busy. they're going down the grocery

store aisle. they have their supermarket cart. they have their child in there. they want the one-second test. they don't want to be told they have to call a call center -- to call a call center and get in a phone tree and press a bunch of buttons and then a message comes on and says, i'm sorry, do r due to high call -- due to high call volume we'll place you on hold and play sweet music for you. maybe if you stay on long enough, and maybe it's not ten minutes, maybe it's an hour, you get a call center overseas saying things in an accent you can't understand. citizens hate that. and they hate pretend false solutions. this is not -- this does not meet direct access information. this is direct. it's in my hand, one second, i see it. that's direct. there's another idea. it's called a q.r. code or a quick response code. quick response, computer code. why is this on the package?

no explanation. well, so is putting something with no explanation on a package helpful to consumers? no. is it there so you can scan it when you check out to see what the price is? is it there to find out about new products that are coming out from this company? is there because you might possibly find out information about discounts? you have no idea. there's no explanation. and when you use that code, you give up personal information, so you have to have a phone, you have to have a smartphone, you have to have a data plan, you have to give up your privacy, and there's no explanation why you would even boarnlg to go to it. that is completely misleading. that's why i call it "this house of mirrors." it's like you're at a sir kussments oh, we have an 800 number. no real information, no direct access to information. let's be honest with the

american public. nine out of ten americans want this information presented in a simple format. a poll, a nationwide poll that was done, then did a follow-up question, would you prefer to have it simple snraited on the package or have a q.r. code? again, nine out of ten state "direct statement on the package." look how much room this takes up. isn't it a lot simpler just to put a little symbol on there? that's all people want. they're not asking for anything that takes up room or costs anything, just like it doesn't cost anything to put on your package another ingredient, if you tad to your ingredient -- if you add it to your ingredient list. labels are changed all the time. i met with industry. they said, here are our top priorities. priority number one is we want a single national standard so we don't have conflicting state

standards. okay, that's understandable. now, we are on the verge of having that. in july we'd have one state with a standard. there's nothing on the horizon for two states. there's several states that have said, if a whole bunch of states sign up, we'll do something collectively. but certainly we're not at risk in the months ahead of more than one state standard. so there's no emergency here. but i agree with the underlying principle that, indeed, when it comes to labels, a warehouse shouldn't have to worry about whether i.t it's shipping produo one subdivision or another. the second thing they said is we don't want anything on the front of the package because that might imply there's something wrong with the food. okay, fair enough. understand that. third they said, we don't want anything pejorative. fair enough. have the f.d.a. select a symbol to put on the package. you know, we could solve this whole debate immediately, for

those who want to put on something like a q.r. code and just say, scan this code for g.e. ingredients in this product. okay. now the consumer gets the one-second test. they look at it, they see there's g.e. ingredients, that's all they want to know. they don't want to give up year privacy by scanning it. they don't want to go to the web site. there's a third idea that's been put forward, a third thing that's supposed to count as answering question inquiries. that's in this bill, to put information on social media. okay, so now this really, really adds -- this triples -- this tre size of the house of mirrors. because you go and you look at the product and you go, oh, did it have a q.r. code? well, no. did it have an 800 number? no. oh, there's a social media thing.

well, we all know that there's over 100 companies doing different types of social media. we know the famous ones, we know facebook and instagram and twitter. so where on their social media did this company put that information? well, now you've really got to be a detective. you could spend hundreds of hours trying to figure out the answer to that. so the 800 number is phony, the q.r. code is a scam, and this whole social media thing is a sham. and all citizens want, all they want is for us to be honest with them about the ingredients. that's all they're asking fomplefor.it's not very much. scientific studies point to the benefits of some genetic engineering. it should be up to the citizen. the citizen has the right to

know. so in this age when we're so divided, we have one thing in common, and that is 90% of our citizens, whether in the presiding officer's state or in any of the senators represented in this distinguished hall, 90% of the citizens want a simple indication on the package. so why today are so many senators coming to this floor saying they don't care about what their citizens feel? they don't care about their citizens' rights and they don't care about states' rights. i've heard so many colleagues who are planning to vote for this sham and scam today come to this floor and talk about the beauty of states as a laboratory for ideas. well, now here's vermont. vermont has said, we'll step up. we will be the laboratory. we will be the first standard

and experiment in putting simple information on the package. the rest of the nation gets the advantage before we make any decision to observe that state laboratory and to say, is it working? is it not working? are there problems being created? how can it be improved? do we want this as a model for the nation as a single standard? or do we see we absolutely don't want it ras -- want it as a mol for the nation? today many of my colleagues here plan to crush the state laboratory. oh, yeah they've given fancy speeches about states' rights but they're coming down today to vote to crush states' rights to respond to a fundamental concern of their citizens. now, i must say, i like the idea of the state laboratory and to see what one state does. but i also understand the underlying concern that in short order there might be multiple

states and conflicting standards and that that is not a functioning situation for interstate commerce. so, if we take away the right for a state to give the one-second test -- direct information, one second, turn of over the package, 880 calories -- that's the test -- turn over the package, g.e. ingredients are present, thank you -- that's the one-second test. if we're going 0 crus to crush e ability of a state to respond to their citizens, then we need to provide the same basic provision, not in a scary fashion, not in a fashion that takes up space on the package, not on the front of the package -- one standard for the entire united states, but it's got to meet that test. that's all. it's a simple, fair exchange. so today, colleagues, i urge you to vote against cloture because this bill is among the worst

bills i have seen ever on the floor of this senate. without good justification, without resolving the issue at hand, crushing states' rights, taking away citizens' right to know and putting out three phony scam/sham alternatives -- that is a very, very sad state of affairs. and another sad state of affairs is that this bill is on this floor having not gone through committee. we've heard a lot of -- a lot of pontificating about good process in the senate and how we were going to have good process, but here's a bill written entirely outside the halls of the committee, never considered in the committee. here it is on the floor. such an important issue would merit substantial debate. such an important issue would merit a full and free amendment process. but two things happened immediately after this bill was

introduced. the first is, the majority leader immediately filed cloture -- that to close debate. so before one word -- not one word had been said on this bill, because no one was able to speak between the bill being put on the floor and cloture. oh, hey, i just filed the floor and i'm closing debate. that is not a fair and open process. and then the tree is filled. so no one can put an amendment forward. and that is not a situation on such aen important issue -- such an important issue. furthermore, thf -- this was dey timed to occur with the primaries yesterday. this is a moment when the american people are paying attention to florida, to illinois, they want to know how it happened in missouri, they want to know what occurred in these five states. the express all paying attention. that's -- the press is all paying attention. that's the one day of debate allowed before this cloture

motion is voted on. so let's take this bill and put it in committee. actually have a committee process to consider it. actually allow full -- bring it back to the floor with whatever changes the committee makes. hopefully the committee would honoring the fundamental right to know by consumers, bring the bill back to the floor, have a full and open amendment process on something so important to citizens, but do not crush states' rights, do not steal consumers' right to know, and try to do it in the dark of night while the nation is distracted by major primaries. it's wrong on policy. it's wrong on process. and it's an injustice to every citizen in our nation. you know, here's the situation: the nation is very cynical about this body. this body here, they say, isn't responding to the concerns of the american citizens. is there any single bill that

has been more an example to justify that cynicism than this bill that is before us right now? when nine out of ten americans say this is important to them, a majority of this body says, we don't care. when nine out of ten -- or roughly that number -- of democrats and republicans and independents all agree on something, this body says, we don't care. isn't the cynicism of the american citizens justified? you know, here's the thing: our nation was founded on a simple principle. that principle embodied by three beautiful words at the start of our constitution, "we the people." well, "we the people" want simple information on the package. so if we are here to honor that principle, why is this bill before us? i ask you, why a bill that says

the interests of a few titans in crushing a state laboratory is more important than the views of 90% of americans? and when those americans are asked, more than seven out of ten say this is very important to them. so this isn't one of those casual issues. why is it so important? because this is food they put in their mouths and on their table. and even if they have no concerns about the g.e. product itself, they feel they have a right to know. so let's return to the principles this nation was founded on. let's quit feeding the cynicism of citizens across this nation, which see these powerful special interests doing the opposite of what citizens asked for. let's be a chamber that honors our relationship with our constituents, not ones that try to stomp out their rights. let's not allow debate to close on this bill.

let's send it back to committee. let's have a committee process. let's have a floor debate in the future, with full and free amendments on an issue so important to our states and so important to our citizens. thank you, mr. president. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i'm going to proceed on my leader time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, the next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the supreme court and have a profound impact on our country, so, of course -- of course the american people should have a say in the court's direction. it is a president's constitutional right to nominate a supreme court justice and it is the senate's constitutional right to act as a check on a

president and withhold its consent. as chairman grassley and i declared weeks ago and reiterated personally to president obama, the senate will continue to observe the biden rule so that the american people have a voice in this momentous decision. the american people may well elect a president who decides to nominate judge garland for senate consideration. the next president may also nominate somebody very different. either way, our view is this: give the people a voice in filling this vacancy. let me remind colleagues of what vice president biden said when he was chairman of the judiciary committee here in the senate. here'here's what he said. "it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way --

and it is -- action on a supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. that is what is fair to the nominee," he said, "and is central to the process. otherwise, it seems to me me, "chairman biden went on, "we will be in deep trouble as an institution." others may fret he said that this approach could leave the court with only eight members for some time. but as i see it, chairman biden said, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the justices 4-4 are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the president, the senate, and the nation would have to pay for what would ainsuredly be a bitter fight no matter -- assuredly be a bitter

fight no matter how a person is nominated by the president. chairman joe biden. consider that last part. senator biden said that the cost of the nation would be too great no matter who the president nominates. president obama and his allies may now try to pretend this disagreement is about a person, but as i just noted his own vice president made it clear it's not. the biden rule reminds us that the decision the senate announced weeks ago remains about a principle and not a person, about a principle and not a person. it seems clear that president obama made this nomination not -- not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed but in order to politicize it for purposes of the election, which is the type of thing then senate

judiciary committee chairman biden was concerned about, the exact thing chairman biden was concerned about. the biden rule underlines what the president has done with this nomination would be unfair to any nominee and more importantly the rule warrants of the great cost the president's action could carry for our nation. americans are certain to hear a lot of rhetoric from the other side in the coming days, but here are the facts they should keep in mind. the current democratic leader said the senate is not a rubber stamp and he noted that the constitution does not require the senate to give presidential nominees a vote. that's the current democratic leader. the incoming democratic leader did not even wait until the final year of george w. bush's term to essentially tell the

senate not, he said, not to consider any supreme court nominee the president sent. the biden rule supports what the senate is doing today underlining that what we're talking about is a principle and not a person. so here's our view. instead of spending more time debating an issue where we can't agree, let's keep working to address the issues where we can. we just passed critical bipartisan legislation to help address the heroin and prescription opioid crisis in our country. let's build on that success. let's keep working together to get our economy moving again and make our country safer rather than endlessly debating a issue where we don't agree. as we continue working on issues like these, the american people are perfectly capable of having

their say, their say on this issue. so let's give them a voice. let's let the american people decide. the senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion for invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in cord gans with the provisions of rule

22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to concur in the house amend with an amendment to s. 764, a bill to reauthorize and amendment the national sea grant college program act and for other purposes, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the essential of the senate that debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to s. 764 with amendment number 3450 offered by the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell shall be brought to a close. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays are - mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote: