today, working on it though that would block funding from sanctuary cities and counties that are local law enforcement officials from cooperating with immigration authorities. centers will take a procedural vote later this afternoon. a vote later on judicial nominations. members are expected to recess at 12 dirty a clock eastern for their weekly party lunches. live coverage here on c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. father, we come to you, the source of our hope and strength. we have recently celebrated america's independence, but each new day seems to bring reminders of how our nation and world are

buffeted by winds of instability and danger. we continue to be reminded that freedom is not free. as our lawmakers seek to do your -- to pay the price for freedom in unstable times, may they not forget that you are not intimidated by any of the divisive and evil forces we face. may our senators remember that their best blessings come from you, the one who has been our help in ages past and remains our hope for years to come.

give them the wisdom to find creative solutions to the many problems we face, trusting you to direct their steps. we pray in your great 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: i understand there's a bill at the desk due a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: s. 3110, a bill to provide for reforms of the administration of the outer continental shelf of the united states and so forth and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceedings. the presiding officer: objection is heard the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, last week's passage of a responsible bipartisan legislation on puerto rico shows what's possible when we keep our focus on serious solutions. that's where we should keep our focus again during the coming work period. we knew that doing nothing was not an option on puerto rico so senators of both parties worked to pass responsible legislation to help the puerto rican people

and prevent a taxpayer bailout. we also knew that doing nothing was not an option on zika yet democrats blocked over a billion dollars in new funding for women's health and pregnant mothers as well as record funding levels for veterans. as i said before, the senate will revisit this important issue over the current work period. we'll give democrats another opportunity to end their filibuster of funding that's critical to controlling zika and supporting our veterans. we'll also address other important issues. senators will have the opportunity to support proposals designed to help keep americans safer in their communities, to help strengthen our military and to help prevent families from unnecessarily paying more for the food they purchase. let me remind colleagues of the four bills i filed cloture on just before the 4th of july state work period. the stop dangerous sanctuary

cities act, kate's law, the biotechnology and labeling compromise, and the defense appropriation bills. i'll have more to say about each of those measures in just a moment. first we'll consider senator toomey's stop dangerous sanctuary cities act and then kate's law from senator cruz. senator toomey's stop dangerous sanctuary cities act aims to deter extreme and unfair so-called sanctuary city policies in the first place and senator cruz's kate's law will help protect the public even when cities insist on maintaining these dangerous policies. senator toomey's bill would support jurisdictions that cooperate with federal law enforcement officials and redirects funds to them from those places that refuse to do so. it would also support law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every single day, protecting them from having to live in constant fear of being sued for simply doing

their jobs. no wonder this bill has such broad support from the law enforcement community, including the federal law enforcement officers association, the national sheriff's association, and the national association of police organizations. senator toomey's bill in conjunction with senator cruz's bill aims to prevent more families from experiencing the heartache that kate's -- kate steinle's family has been forced to endure. it's been a year since kate was tragically murdered in san francisco by a convicted felon who had been deported five times. what makes this tragedy even more heartbreaking is that it could have been prevented but san francisco had an extreme so-called sanctuary city policy of not complying with federal immigration laws. apparently even when it came to detaining dangerous criminals residing in our country illegally. in this case the city's

irresponsible policy helped lead to a young woman senselessly losing her life at the hands of a felon who never should have been on the streets to begin with. senator cruz's bill is about getting dangerous criminals off our streets and keeping our communities safer. it will prevent individuals who have been convicted of coming here illegally and have been convicted of committing serious criminal offenses from harming more innocent victims like kate steinle. we're a nation of immigrants. we all appreciate the many contributions that immigrants have made to our country over the years. americans from both parties know it would be incredibly dishonest to pretend this bill is aimed at law abiding immigrants who enrich our country reason who it is really aimed at, those who come to this country illegally and have criminal convictions. americans from both parties also understand that extreme sanctuary city policies can inflict incredible pain on innocent victims and their families.

president obama's own secretary of homeland security has called sanctuary city policies not acceptable and counterproductive to public safety. we took up similar measures last year and it was unfarther nat -- unfortunate to see them blocked. let's work together now to make the right choice and advance these measures to prevent more tragedies like kate's and to support local law enforcement officials who put their lives on the line for us every day. after the senate considers these bills, we'll move to a bipartisan compromise recently announced by the top republican anded top democrat -- and the top democrat on the agriculture committee. it would protect middle-class families from unnecessary and unnecessary higher food prices that could result from a patchwork of state food labeling laws and it would ensure access to more information about the food they purchase as well. while the bill before us may not be perfect, it's the product of diligent work from both sides and to reach -- they worked very hard in fact to reach an agreement. it's a common sense measure

based on science which is not shown health, safety or nutritional risk associated with bioengineering products. the chairman of the agriculture committee senator roberts said this bipartisan bill recognizes the 30-plus years of proven safety of biotechnology while ensuring consumer access to more information about their food. the ranking member of the agriculture committee, a democrat, calls it a win for consumers and families and with cooperation from across the aisle we'll pass it. i also filed cloture to begin debate on the fiscal year 2017 defense appropriations bill which funds the training, equipping, and readiness of our armed forces. this bill provides the men and women who protect us with the resources they need to execute their missions. and it provides our military with the tools it needs to prepare and modernize the force which is critical at a time of

numerous threats to our nation. so senators from both sides have already passed a bill to authorize funds for national defense rye majorities -- priorities. now it's time for senators from both sides to pass this bill. it will actually appropriate those funds. mr. reid: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democrat irleader. mr. reid: thank you. i'm sure the american people recognizes that we're returning from another vacation, a break they're called. we'll have a serious proposal to address zika. zika is a threat. it's a scourge and less than ten

days the senate will adjourn for its longest break in many decades. sadly, though, republicans are no closer to getting serious about zika. the senate will vote again on their cynical conference report which i'll describe in some detail in a minute, but it's full of partisan provisions designed to inject politics into a public health emergency. this bad legislation will never pass and will never get a presidential signature. we should be working for a bipartisan solution, but my friend, the republican leader, said we're going to vote on this again. vote on this again? that's too bad. it's no surprise that the party of donald trump and mish mcconnell prefuse -- mitch mcconnell refuse to address the threat posed by zika. it's a virus like we've never seen before. mosquitoes have caused problems for many, many generations but never, never birth defects. democrats have spend more than four months sounding the alarm on zika. we called on republicans to join

us to fund a responsible response to this threat. it was looming. now it's here. republicans have refused to make zika a priority. it hasn't always been this way. in the not too distant future, republicans worked with us on crisis and disasters. the last public health emergency emergencies, ebola, h1n1 flu, avian flu and much higher price tags yet responses to each passed congress in a short period of time. spent more than 130 days since president obama requested $1.9 billion for public health officials to protect the american people against zika. this isn't some figure he came up without of the air. he was told this by centers for disease control, national institutes of health, and other public health officials. republicans have simply ignored this emergency. it is an emergency. so why is the party of trump and

mcconnell treating zika differently than they treated every other modern public health emergency? mr. president, could it be like -- well, maybe it could be that it's uniquely devastating on women. i'd hate to think this is the case but you can't ignore the facts. when women face the greatest risk, the terrible risks, everyone knows now that this mosquito is ravaging thousands and thousands of people and tens of thousands of women have this virus. and we don't know how many yet will give birth to these deformed babies. suddenly republican men suddenly

feel they know best about women's health. this isn't new. they've always done that. when you see on tv, the people that are most pro-life are men, not women. every day new reports emerge as americans being infected with zika. right now we know at least about 550 women have this infection. it's been positiven in labs -- proven in labs. millions more as i've indicated are threatened and women in states with large latino populations are at the greatest risk. zika has been linked to many health problems but notably a terrible birth defect called mike sefly -- micrencephaly which happens when an expectant mother contracts zika. most of them haven't survived. we've all seen the images of these babies with their small

skulls. most of them caved in. it's heartbreaking but we should do something to stop it. still the republican leaders are wasting time with failed votes on really unserious legislation. this sort of reckless partisanship, no matter the cost to women and families, is exactly the sort of behavior that led to the rise of donald trump, the sort of legislation you would expect from trump and mcconnell's new republican party. get the votes of the loudest, most by calendar of the republican party. not surprisingly, republicans returned to their obsession with the funding -- with defunding planned parenthood. this isn't new. this is the old playbook. let's defund planned parenthood. let's go out and get some phony pictures of what they're doing, which is all -- we've all proven

to be false. but let's do something to go after planned parenthood, led by, of course, men, with rare exception. the republican bill would restrict funding for planned parenthood and other family planning clinics. thighs are the very place mas provide birth control to women in zika-affected areas. planned parenthood has provided millions of women a place to go to get their health care. this is a -- this is beyond hypocrisy. republicans are expecting women to magically stop the spread of zika, all the while denying them access to family planning services. but republicans don't stop there. their bill would also hurt veterans by slashing the senate's level of funding for v.a. by $500 million. what would that money be used for? processing claims of veterans. they wipe that out.

roll back environmental protections and the clincher, as we all know, is they would allow the confederate flag to fly over cemeteries. these provisions are as unacceptable as they are partisan. that's why senate democrats rejected the outrageous republican bill and will do so again. the zika threat is growing, but that hasn't changed republicans' vacation plans. they need time to unify around donald trump in cleveland, but no time for american women. for today's trump and mcconnell's republicans, a public health crisis has disproportionately dangerous to women isn't worth serious bipartisan action. toad that fact that zika is affecting women by the tens of thousands in central and south america and the picture becomes even clearer. the anti-immigrant party of trump and mcconnell would rather be on vacation than lift a finger to help. the national institutes of health, centers for disease control are warning that vaq --

vaccine research is likely to stop without immediate action by congress. a poll introduced by the kaiser foundation found 72% of americans want government to spend more to fight zika. not less, more. we need to act and we need to act now. it is obvious pick ago fight over women's health is more important to republicans than a bipartisan response to stop the spread of this dread, dread virus. democrats have called on iranians to get something done. the seven-week vacation should be delayed. there's no excuse for inaction and partisanship. we can't afford to waste another day, a week, another month. we've already wasted four months for republicans to help stop the spread of this emergency. let's get to work and do it now. finally, on another subject rkt mr. president, senate republicans today will promote

donald trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric with action. this afternoon the senate will vote to consider a pair of bills proposed by the junior senators from pennsylvania and texas. these bills follow trump's lead in demonizing and criminalizing immigrant latino families. senator toomey's bill would undermine the ability of local law enforcement to police their own communities to ensure public safety. it would deny millions of dollars of critical community and economic development funding to cities and states that reuse- refuse to target immigrant families t wouldn't solve anything. not surprisingly, it is opposed by mayors, domestic violence groups, latino and civil rights groups, and labor organizations. senator cruz's bill is no better. it would enact unnecessary mandatory minimum sentences. it would cost billions and billions of new dollars, increase prison population. worst of all, this sort of

partisan piecemeal approach auns efforts to enact reforms to our criminal justice system. the assistant democratic leader has worked for years on doing something about the criminal justice system. he's been joined by a bipartisan group of people to get something done. but again the republican leader is too interesd in doing things that mean nothing than do something that means something. by pursuing legislation, targeting sanctuary cities, the republicans are work on trump's vision. republicans want red meat going into their convention. they want to pivot from the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our nation. americans deserve a real solution to our broken immigration system, not

dog-whistle politics. senator mcconnell wants to bring it legislation to the floor. we're going to take a serious look at it. maybe getting on the bill might be the right thing to do. we should -- if we get on that, the republican leader said he wants a robust amendment process. well, we'll be happy to give him one. we'll have a number of amendments on guns. we'll have a number of amendments on zika, and we'll do something about comprehensive immigration reform. so we're going to take a look at that. we may just get on that bill and find out if we're going to have this robust amendment process. so let's address comprehensive immigration reform, guns, zika, and other issues. we're happy to do that. this may be an opportunity for us to move forward on those issues. would the chair 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 motion to proceed to s. 3100, which the clerk will report. the clerk: moke motion to

proceed to the consideration of s. 3100, a bill to ensure that state and local law enforcement may cooperate with federal officials to protect our communities from violent criminals and suspected terrorists who are illegally present in the united states. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: i see my colleagues from kansas and michigan on the floor. i know they are leer to speak on the -- i know they are here to speak on the g.m.o. issue. i will make a short statement. mr. president, the republican senate leader came to the floor this morning and congratulated the senate on the fact that we passed on a bipartisan basis the puerto rico legislation necessary to deal with their financial disaster that they face. we did that last week, truly in a bipartisan way. and the republican leader said this morning, we need to keep our focus on serious issues. and then he comes to us with

four bills that he requests we take up during the apreifated session -- abbreviated session we have this week and next week. among those four bills are two that he acknowledges are clearly only introduced for the political impact, for the message that they might deliver. one bill that is being promoted by the senator from pennsylvania, the junior senator, is a bill relating to sanctuary cities. this measure was largely considered and voted on only eight months ago and defeated in the senate. why are we bringing it back today? well, there's been some candor on the republican side. the senator who is offering this measure is up for reelection. he believes that this is an important -- quote -- "message amendment" -- close quote -- that he needs to take back to his home state of pennsylvania. and he wants to make sure that the senate takes up this measure before the republican

convention, which starts up in a couple weeks. so this is a political tactic which is sadly going to eat up the time of the senate with the same ultimate result. this senator toomey sanctuary bill will not pass, but it gives him something to talk about when he goes home and something perhaps to give a speech about at the republican convention. so going back to senate republican leader's suggestion that we ought to be focusing in a bipartisan way on serious issues, the first suggestion out of the box for a message amendment is clearly being done for political purposes only. the second measure is one that is brought to the floor at the request of senator ted cruz, the junior senator from texas. this will bring us back to some debate over immigration again on are what's known as kate's law and a suggestion by senator cruz that we create a new mandatory minimum criminal sentence. this measure on its face is unacceptable and unaffordable.

it would criminalize with mandatory minimum sentencing conduct which would affect thousands of people who have crossed over the border into the united states undocumented. and, of course, the senator from texas wants this message amendment during this apreifated -- apreifated -- abbreviated short session before the republican convention in order to make his political point. here we are with the republican leader telling us, first congratulating us on being bipartisan on serious issues, and then turning around and two of the four things he suggests we do these two weeks really have no chance to pass. one at least has been voted on in the last eight months on the floor of the united states senate. and they've acknowledged, they're only offering these amendments to give the senators who are making the request a chance to make some political hay in the weeks and days before the republican convention in cleveland. why? because the presumptive, as they call him -- presumptive

republican nominee for president wants to focus on immigration. and as a consequence, those who are lining up behind him, like the junior senator from pennsylvania, want to have some agoing points to make -- arguing points to make to support donald trump's candidacy. it is a sad relate that i three years ago -- it is a sad reality that three years ago we did something constructive on the issue of immigration. we passed bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. sadly, that measure died in the house when they wouldn't even consider that bill or any bill on the issue. so we had a constructive alternative. it massed here in a -- it passed here in a bipartisan fashion on a serious issue. since then, republicans have stonewalled and stopped every effort to deal with immigration. the two measures before us by the senators from pennsylvania and texas should be taken for what they are. they are political posturing

before the republican national convention. they are efforts of these two senators will have something to talk about an brag about at the cleveland convention but they don't take us to the serious issues we still fairks issues lirk -- we still face, issues like the g.m.o. issue we'll here about in aempt mo. issues like funding for zika, a measure passed the senate 89-1234 a strong bipartisan measure and then went over to the house and languished in a queens committee and was reported out with no democratic signatories to the conference report. that measure has been defeated once. the senate republican leader said we'll just go call the same measure again, with obviously the same outcome. we still have questions about funding on zika, questions about funding on opioid abuse, serious measures we should be taking rather than these so-called message amendments be offered by the other side. i yield the floor. mr. roberts: mr. president? officerrer sph the senator from kansas. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: i have ten

minutes reserved, as i understand. may i ask unanimous consent for an additional minute, if i do not finish. i am to be followed by my distinguished ranking member, senator stabenow. mr. president -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. roberts: mr. president, i come to the floor now with a microphone to talk about a topic on a bipartisan bill that will affect what consumers pay for their food, the grave threats of worldwide malnutrition and hunger and the future of every farmer, every grower, and the future of every rancher in america. that topic is agriculture biotechnology. we have all heard about our growing global population. currently, it is 7 billion and estimated to reach over 9.6 billion in the next few decades.

and tonight one in nine people -- that's roughly 800 million people, mr. president -- worldwide will go to bed hungry around the world in poverty regions that are facing increased challenges in feeding their people. show me a nation that cannot feed itself, and i'll show you a nation in chaos and goodness knows we've had enough of that. we've seen too many examples in recent years where shortfalls in grain and other food items or increases in prices at the consumer level have helped to trigger outbreaks in civil unrest and protests in places like the middle east and africa. in light of these global security threats, today's farmers are being asked to produce more safe and affordable food to meet the demands at home and around the globe. at the same time, farmers are facing increased challenges to their production, including

limited land and water resources, uncertain weather to be sure, and pest and disease issues. however, over the past 20 years, agriculture biotechnology has become an invaluable tool in ensuring the success o of the american farmer and a more efficient, safe, and responsible manner. for years now the united states has proven that american agriculture plays a pivotal role in addressing food shortfalls around the world. we must continue to consider new and innovative ways to get ahead of the growing population and production challenges. now in addressing these issues, we must continue to be guided by the best available science, research, and innovation. mr. president, if you've heard any of my previous remarks on this topic, you've heard me say time and time again that

biotechnology products are safe. my colleagues, 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 told us that these products are safe, that they are safe for the environment, safe for other plants and certainly safe for our food supply. since that hearing the u.s. government reinforced their decisions on the safety of these products. last november the f.d.a. took several steps based on sound science regarding food that is produced from biotech plants, including issue final guidance for. the presidin.the presiding-- foo voluntarily list their products.

and more importantly, the food and drug administration denied a petition that would have required the mandatory on package labeling of biotech foods. the f.d.a. maintained that evidence was not provided for the agency to put such a requirement in place because there is no health, safety or nutritional difference between buy -- biotech crops and their nonbiotech varieties. a recent report from the national academy of sciences found no substantial evidence of a difference in risk to human health between currently commercial available genetically engineered crops and conventionally bred crops. and just last week 110 nobl laureates -- noble laureates sent a letter to leaders of

greenpeace, united nations and all governments around the world in support of agriculture biotechnology and particularly in support of golden rice. you see, golden rice has the potential -- has had the potential, and has the potential to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a vitamin a deficiency, particularly among the poorest people in africa and southeast asia. these world renowned scientists noted that -- quote -- "scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops in foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe if not safer than those derived from any other method of production. furthermore, the laureate said there has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment and

a boon to global biodiversity. now, there's been a lot of discussion about agriculture biotechnology lately, and that's a good thing. we should be talking about our food. we should be talking about our farmers and producers, and we should be talking to consumers. it's important to have an honest discussion and an open exchange of dialogue. after all, that is what we do here in the senate. to discuss difficult issues, craft solutions, and finally vote in the best interest of our constituents. the difficult issue for us to address is what to do about the pash work -- patchwork of biotechnology labeling laws that soon will wreak havoc on the flow of interstate commerce of agriculture and food products in every supermarket, every grocery store up and down every main street. that is what this discussion should be about. it's not about safety or health

or nutrition. it's all about marketing. if we don't act today, what we face is a handful of states that have chosen to enact labeling requirements on information that has nothing to do with health, with safety, or nutrition. unfortunately, the impact of those decisions will be felt across the country and around the globe. those decisions impact the farmers in 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 much higher priced food. and when on package labels force

food manufacturers to reformulate food products, our farmers will have limited biotechnology options available. this will result in less food available to the many miles and our troubled and hungry world. it's not manufacturers who pay the ultimate price. it's the consumer at home and around the globe who will bear this burden unless we act today. now, i am proud of the critical role the department of agriculture has played and will continue to play in combating global hunger. farmers and ranchers in kansas, michigan, all across the -- across this country have been and are committed to continuing to do their part. and those of us who represent them in the united states senate should do our part to stand up in defense of sound science and innovation. we should stand up to ensure that our farmers and ranchers

have access to agriculture, biotechnology and other tools to address these global challenges. now, the proposal put forth by my distinguished ranking member senator stabenow and myself provides that the defense of our food system and our farmers and ranchers while at the same time providing a reasonable solution to consumer demand for more information, that's what the bill does. our amendment strikes a careful balance. it certainly is not perfect from my perspective. it's not the best possible bill, but it is the best bill possible under these difficult circumstances we find ourselves in today. that is why, that is why, my colleagues, it is supported by a broad coalition of well over 1,000 food and agricultural interests. that sets a record in the senate agriculture committee, including the american farm bureau of

federation, grocery manufacturers association and the u.s. chamber of commerce, just to name a few. i urge my colleagues not to merely support cloture on a bill this afternoon but to support your broad range of constituents who benefit from its passing. passing this bill benefits farmers and ranchers by providing a mechanism for disclosure that educates rather than denigrates their technology. passing this bill benefits manufacturers by providing a single national standard with which to be held accountable rather than an unworkable system of many more state standards. and finally, passing this bill benefits consumers by increasi increasingly -- by greatly increasing the amount of food information at their fingertips

but does not do so in a way that provides cost effective options to avoid devastating increases in the price of food. passing this bill is the responsible thing to do, mr. president. it's time for us to act. i urge my colleagues to join us in doing just that. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. first i want to say thank you to the chairman of the agriculture, nutrition and forestry committee. we've had some tough negotiations on this issue, and i think have come to a place that makes sense for farmers and the food industry as well as consumers. so i want to thank senator roberts. we worked together on a bipartisan basis on issue after issue after issue coming before the committee. and i'm sure we will continue to

do that. i don't think we have an economy unless somebody grows something, makes something and grows something. that's how you have an economy. and we worked very hard to come to a spot where we can actually get things done because that's what people expect us to do. it's great to talk but people want us to actually solve problems and get things done. so today i do rise to discuss an important partisan agreement, hard fought, tough negotiated agreement that the senate will soon vote on regarding the issue of g.m.o. labeling. this bill is frankly very different from what passed the house of representatives about a year ago i think now. and from what we voted on in march. and i do think senator roberts and -- thank senator roberts and his staff for working in a bipartisan way to get us to the spot where we are now. as everyone knows, i opposed

voluntary labeling at every turn. i don't think it's right to preempt states from having labeling laws and replace it with something that is voluntary. there needs to be a mandatory system which is what this bill does. i worked to keep what was dubbed by activists as the dark act from becoming law three different times here in the united states senate. throughout this process i worked to enthis are that any agreement -- to ensure that any agreement would first recognize the scientific consensus that biotechnology is safe. second, ensure that consumers have the right to know what is in their food. and third, to prevent a confusing patchwork of 50 different labeling requirements in 50 different states. and while this issue stirs strong emotions on all sides of

this debate, i certainly understand that. the fact of the matter is this bill achieves all of those goals and for the first time ever we will ensure we have a mandatory national labeling system for g.m.o.'s. unfortunately, mr. president, in many ways this debate has served as a proxy fight about whether biotechnology has a role in our food system and in agriculture as a whole. i think that's really fundamentally what the debate is about under this whole issue. and when we vote -- we wrote the farm bill back in 2013 now, i made it a top priority to support all parts of agriculture. it was very important to me to say consumers need choices. we need to support every part of agriculture, and that's what we

did in a very robust way. we made important investments and reforms that helped our traditional growers, conventional growers, and we made significant investments in organics, in local food systems, small farms, and farmers markets in a way we have not done before as a country. we did this because we recognized that it takes all forms of agriculture to ensure we continue leading the world with the safest, most affordable food supply. that's why when i hear friends who oppose this bill denying the overwhelming body of science that says biotechnology poses no human health or safety risk while believing the same scientists, very same national academy of scientists who tell us that climate change is real,

i have to shake my head. i believe in science. that's why i know climate change is real. i believe in science and that's why when the same people, the national academy of sciences, over a hundred nobel laureates last week, when the f.d.a. tells us that biotechnology is safe for human consumption, that there is no material difference between g.m.o. and non-g.m.o. ingredients, i believe science. in fact, as was indicated earlier, over a hundred nobel laureates signed a letter to greenpeace last week asking them to end their opposition to g.m.o.'s over a strain of rice that will reduce vitamin a deficiencies that cause blindness and death in children in the developing world. i stand with the scientific evidence from leading health

organizations, like the american medical association, the national academy of sciences, the f.d.a., the world health organization who all say that g.m.o.'s are safe for human consumption. and i find it ironic that those who challenge this science have latched on to comments from the f.d.a., an agency who has found no scientific evidence that biotechnology threatens human safety as some type of credibility, credible challenge to this agreement. in fact, i find it so interesting that in talking about comments from the f.d.a., they omit the first paragraph, which was, by the way, we don't believe from a health risk -- safety risk standpoint, that g.m.o.'s should be labeled, which is why they have consistently said "no" to labeling and would, not surprisingly, interpret a

biotechnology definition in the most narrow way, because they don't believe that g.m.o.'s should be labeled. so i stand before this chamber today, before colleagues, to say, enough is enough. i've been through enough of these debates in the past to know that sometimes no matter the amount of reason or logic, someone is not going to change their position. i understand that. but i remember senator daniel patrick moynihan of new york, who used to say that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. so, in that spirit, let's talk about the facts. for the first time, consumers in all 50 states will have a mandatory national g.m.o. label on their food. right now, if we do nothing, that's who gets labeling --

vermont and potentially a couple of other states. -- a couple of other states in the northeast. if we vote, if we vote "yes," everyone will have the opportunity to get more information about their food as it relates to g.m.o.'s. while many want to hold up the vermont law, the fact is that that law ensures that a little more than 626,000 people have information about their food. in fact, there are nearly 16 times more people in michigan, and they deserve the right to know as well. that's why this mandatory national labeling system is so important, and let's talk about what we are saying. not in a voluntary way, as passed the house but requiring one of three choices. three well-regulated ways for companies to disclose information.

now, some have already chosen what they are going to do and have said, we're going to continue doing on-pack words, like vermont. their significant companies have said, we want certainty. we want this law passed, but this is what we're doing. we also give a choice of an on-pack symbol, and this is not the specific but i.t. the idea of what it -- but it's the idea of what it would be. wref some major -- we have some major retailers in this country who have said, regardless of what happens, we are only going to let products on our shelves if they have the first, which is words, or a symbol. so the marketplace is definitely going to drive where this goes and consumers will continue to drive it. but we also know that an electronic label makes sense, if it is recreated in a specific -- regulated in a specific way to

make sure that consumers can have access. and we also know that there are those who want very much to make sure that they not only share information that there are g.m.o. ingredients but also important things like the national academy of sciences says that they are safe for human consumption, so that there's some context around this. it is not scare tactics, it's fact-based. now, let me also say that we know that consumers want other kinds of information other than just whether or not there's genetically modified ingredients in their food. the number-one issue, i'm told, that consumers ask about is food allergies. we know that others are concerned about antibiotics in meat. that there are a whole range of issues that people care about.

for me, in the world of smartphones and electronics going forward, it makes sense from a consumer standpoint to have a universally accepted platform where you not only get information about g.m.o.'s but whether or not you should be concerned about your food allergies and what's, in fact, in the ingredient. right now i have friends that have to go to a book in the back of the store to figure out what is going on in terms of food ingredients. having something that is accessible to all of us who are using these phones would make sense, and that's what we are talking about. so we have three different options, the companies or the stores that they put them in will drive what the options are. so let me go to debunking a

little bit of this whole question on allowing an electronic label. first of all, nielsen tells us that 82% of american households right now own a smartphone -- 82%. in fact, it is so interesting to me that the people that are expressing outrage about technology are using their smartphones in order to tweet that or going to facebook and other social media, a socially accepted way for us all to be communicating together. so 82% of american households own a smartphone, and we're told by nielsen that that very quickly will become 90%. now, for someone who doesn't have a smartphone or maybe they're in an area where there's concern about broadband, which concerns me in some rural areas,

we make sure that before this is implemented, the usda has to survey areas where this is a problem and make sure there's more accessibility with additional scanners in the store and additional opportunities for people to be able to get the information, to be able to use this i. if they don't have a smartphone, they want to be able to put the can up a scanner. that's another option as well. let me also say that more and more using smartphones and electric labels are very much a part of our lives. we have those doing it for food information right now. you can scan to get a price right now on a can. we have all kinds of apps on our phone, from paying bills to going through the airport to connecting with friends. and this is very much about the

future and how we're going to find out all kinds of information. so it's not unreasonable that in order to help consumers get information -- not just on g.m.o.'s but food allergies and other kinds of important issues -- that we would look at electronic labels as a way to do that, and this actually was an idea that came from the secretary of agriculture looking at all of the different requests to their department for information. so iappreciate some of the concerns about the -- so i appreciate some of the concerns about the electric label, but this is not about hiding information, because we will be working to make sure there is accessibility in the store for that information and going forward, as we virtually have everyone at some point using their smartphone to communicate to do business, to do banking, to do communications with

friends and so on. i think this will frankly become less and less of an issue, as we go forward. let me also, one more time, say one of three things must be done. major companies have already said that while they want the certainty of a national law so they can plan -- and we don't see disruptions for our farmers and grocery store owners and others -- that they will simply do on-pack words or an on-pack symbol. but there are three choices available. you must do one of those in order to make information available, and i fully expect that consumers will engage with companies to advocate as to which one of those they want to see happening. let me talk to something else that's not been focused on

enough. we've been talking about how to label, which is only one piece of this. another piece of this is the fact that the bill in front of us ensures that around 25,000 more products will be labeled than are labeled in vermont or any of the other states that we're talking about. 25,000 more products will be labeled and consumers will have the opportunity to know what is in those products. this is really -- this has really been glossed over, and i think that it's very unfortunate. right in ou anything -- right n, anything with meat, eggs, cheese, dairy in vermont is

exempt. this agreement gives consumers information about 25,000 more products are that contains meat, even if the product -- when the product also contains g.m.o. ingredients. 25,000 more products. that's good for consumers and families who want to know. and, to be clear, this bill has the same tough standards as the european union and many other countries when it comes to livestock. however, this bill, unlike vermont, doesn't provide the full exemption for a g.m.o. food product just because it contains a trace of meat as an ingredient. so what does that mean? well, in vermont, you walk in.

if it's cheese pizza, it's labeled. cheese pepperoni pizza, not labeled. even though it has g.m.o. ingredients, not labeled. in vermont, vegetable soup -- labeled. vegetable beef soup -- exempt, even though it has g.m.o. ingredients. in vermont, a fettuccine alfredo -- i am getting hungry here for lunch -- fettuccin alfredo, labeled. fettuccine alfredo with chicken and broccoli, exempt -- even though it has g.m.o. ingredients. now, somebody tells me why that makes any sense from a consumer standpoint? we fixed that in this bill. the next thing that we focus on is making sure that we maintain

and strengthen the organic lab label, something not done in other versions of the bill. as we know, organics have always been non-g.m.o. but those families who wish not to buy products with g.m.o.'s, those who have wanted to buy products not with g.m.o.'s have always had that option. but it's, for many consumers, been unclear. people question, well, does organics mean the same as non-g.m.o.? to make it clear, among a number of changes we're making to strengthen and protect the organize gonic label -- the organic label, this makes it clear that they can now display a non-g.m.o. label in addition to the usda seal. this is also important information not in any other bill -- this is also important

information not in any other bill to give consumers choices about the food they eat. so let's talk now for a moment about the definition that has been talked a lot about in terms of biotechnology. the definition -- first of all, let me say, it is the usda, not the f.d.a., has the sole agency that will implement this mandatory national labeling system. they are the ones given the authority to label everything that contains g.m.o.'s that's on the grocery shelf, and that's what this label and definition does. while we saw a lot of fervor last week about comments from the f.d.a., it does not change the fact that usda will implement this mandatory national labeling system.

not the f.d.a., who doesn't believe it should be labeled and has the most conservative view on what is buyer tec definition is -- a biotech definition is. it is ironic that labeling advocates that have clung to these statements when the f.d.a. gave out a memorandum of technical assistance have missed or refused to also indicate that the f.d.a. has repeatedly denied petitions to label g.m.o.'s. that's why this is going through the f.d.a. from an information and marketing standpoint and not the f.d.a. because there's not scientific evidence to put it into the f.d.a. as a health ri risk. furthermore, we have heard from many opponents who say the definition of this agreement does not match any other

international definition of biotechnology. the fact is the definition of biotechnology varies greatly among the 64 countries with mandatory labeling laws. and our definition is in line with many of those countries and even has the potential to cover more foods. for example, the european union definition of biotechnology which applies to food produced in 27 countries clearly does not include gene editing or other new technologies. this agreement we will be voting on provides authority to the usda to label those things. japan only requires labels on eight crops, 33 specific food products, and exempts refined

sugar. eight crops. our bill provides authority to the usda to label refined sugars and other processed products. so when people point to international laws, that's -- let's really look at the details of those laws before we start holding those laws as the gold standard for g.m.o. labeling laws. again finally, madam president, i again reflect on the statement from senator moynihan. everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion but not his or her own facts. this bill creates the first ever mandatory national g.m.o. labeling requirement. we cover 25,000 more foods than our -- than are labeled in vermont or the other states.

we protect and strengthen the organic label which is non-g.m.o. and make it is a clear choice for consumers. we preserve and protect federal and state consumer laws. that's where this will be enforced. one of the major areas of negotiations was to make sure that while there was a preemption of the capacity to label, that it did not bleed over into the capacity to enforce fraud or inaccuracy or other issues that relate to labeling, and we have been very clear the enforcement will come from federal and state consumer protection laws and finally we're presenting a patchwork of 50 state labeling laws that just as any other area of international commerce we as a

country have said does not make sense. so we can nitpick this agreement around the edges. certainly in any negotiation there's always things that you'd like to see in an agreement that's not there and certainly in any bipartisan agreement that's going to be the case. but this bill moves us forward with a commonsense approach that for the first time guarantees consumers who want to know if their food includes g.m.o.'s the ability to know while at the same time creating certainty for our food producers, our farmers, our manufacturers and our groc grocers. i would urge colleagues to come together to look at the facts, to look at the science, to

support this bipartisan agreement. we have an opportunity to really get something done, not just talk, but to actually get something done that's positive. and i hope that we will do that. thank you, madam president. i would yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. mr. durbin: pardon me? the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. mr. durbin: madam president, i ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized without objection. mr. durbin: monday, the 4th of july was the 240th anniversary of the creation of the united states of america. it was a day we celebrated this great nation. we celebrated our great leaders, but in illinois we lost one of our best in the passing of abner mcida. he was a friend and extraordinary individual. his record of public service is unmatched. i can't think of anyone off the top of my head who did so many

distinguished things in both the legislative branch of our federal government, in the house of representatives, serving on the u.s. circuit court for the district of columbia in the judicial branch and general counsel to president william clinton in the white house in the executive branch. you see he combined them all. le highlights of his life are an amazing story, a young man going through law school who decided in 1948 that he wanted to get involved in politics. i got his start when he walked into an eighth ward headquarters in the city of chicago in 1948. back in the day when the organization, the democratic organization of chicago was a powerful operation. here he was, a young man, young law student who was inspired by the candidacies of addley

stevenson for governor of illinois and paul douglas for the united states senate and wanted to do his part. what transpired when he made that effort has become legend in chicago. ap near mikva showed up -- abner mikva showed up at a ward meeting. he was looking to volunteer. the ward committeeman said to ab mikva who sent you? he said nobody sent me. the ward committeeman said we don't want nobody, nobody sent. he then said to him, are you looking for a job? and he said, no, i'm not really looking for a job. and the ward committeeman said we don't want nobody who ain't looking for a job. and then he said, the ward committeeman said, where are you from, kid? he said i go to the university of chicago and the ward committeeman made it clear, we don't want nobody from the university of chicago. that was abner mikva's

introduction into politics. you think he would have been discouraged by that but he was not. he went on to graduate from the university of chicago law school, to clerk for a u.s. supreme court justice, and then to practice law in the city. in the 1950's he decided to run for the illinois house of representatives. he ran against that same political organization that had turned away his efforts to be a volunteer and he won. he came to springfield, illinois, my hometow hometown ae capital of our state in the illinois house and found some kindred spirits, one of them paul simon who eventually served here in the united states senate was abner mikvah's closest friend. another tony scuriano was another independent who came to the illinois house to try and make a difference. the three of them roomed

together. mikva, jewish, paul catholic. they called their gang the kosher nostra and they set out to try to change the government of illinois and in many ways they did. but even more than their contributions legislatively, politically they created a force in illinois both down state and in chicago which made a big difference in the history of our state. admiral mikva went on to be elected in the u.s. house of representatives where he was wasuntil he was appointed to the district court of the district of columbia. he started off on the south side of chicago around hyde park and when he saw the demographics changing, picked up and moved literally north to the evanston area, which was the base for his political operations in the new congressional district. he moved his entire operation up

north and inspired the kind of followership and devotion which politicians dream of. if you were part of the mikva organization in his district, you took it personally. i can recall people saying with a straight face that they were part of the mikva operation and decided to move out of his district, and they had to break the news to the mikva coordinator. and of course the coordinator insisted that before they could move, they had to find someone to replace them as precinct volunteers to help mikva get reelected to the u.s. house of representatives, which he did sponsor radically, losing a couple times but winning as well. the time came when he was appointed to the drict court of appeals here in -- to the district court of appeals here in the district of columbia, the second highest court in the land, where he wrote many important decisions relative to basic rights of people under the constitution. he was my friend.

i was introduced to him by paul simon, my predecessor here in the united states senate. i think of the two of them as my north star when it comes to issues of integrity, independence, and progressive values. i was lucky to know mikva throughout my congressional career in the house and the senate and to have loretta join me as we had dinner with ab and his wife zoe after his retirement. ab mikva received the medal of honor. they were close personal friends. it was ab mikva that barack obama went to when he was interested in a career in politics. and mikva counseled him, suggesting that perhaps he ought to listen more carefully to african-american ministers so he could put a little more life and emotion into his speaking style.

obviously, he took that lesson to heart. it was admiral mikva who stood by barack obama in his early days running for the united states senate and then running for the presidency. he was always his right-hand man, willing to offer advice and connect him with the right people on the political scene. their friendship endured until ab's passing just a couple days ago. i know the president feels as i do that we've lost a great friend and supporter in what he was able to achieve. he also had a friendly way about him, a happy way about him. he enjoyed life. he used to engage in poker games that included supreme court justices and federal judges. some of them you'd be surprised to hear included william rehnquist, who would play poker with ab mikva, the two men from 0 opposite ends of the political specter. he left an enduring mark on america's legal system.

there were so many young people who started off as clerks for abner mikva. one of those persons sits on the u.s. supreme court, elena kagan was a clerk to judge mikva and went on to the highest court in the land, an indication of the quality of people who worked with and for him. his law clerks went on to serve justices thurgood marshall, harry black man and lou we powell. "the new york times" once branded him "as the zell og of the american legal scene p." one lawyer turned down a mikva clerkship and that was barack obama, who did find another way to contribute to this nation. in 1997, judge mikva hndz ace wife zoe founded the mikva challenge, a program that i've becomeacquainted with and worked

with over the years. what they tried to do was engage young people in politics and they do it on a bipartisan basis. if a young person wants to volunteer for the republican party, they find ways that they can be part of a campaign and part of working in an office so they can see firsthand what politics and government are all about. and of course they provide similar volunteers for the democratic candidates. these young people see their lives transformed and changed by this mikva challenge. i have met them and many times wonder what their future may hold but knowing full well some of them will be in public service as much as admiral mikva was. just a couple months ago there was a special leon to celebrate abner's contributions to public service. the decision was being made at the time and i hope they carried it through to make this a permanently funded foundation supported effort which will

survive, of course, abner and zeo and live on for many deducts to come. -- decades to come. some years ago judge mick scray told a reporter that it is important for society to have heroes. he said, you have to have live heroes. it's not inust to be h exposed o george washington in grade school or abraham lincoln in high school. you have to have somebody who you can identify with in the here and now, who makes the institutions we're trying to preserve worthwhile. well, i'm very proud to join the alliance for justice and many other groups who have stood up and acknowledged the amazing contributions that have been made by abner mikva and zoe during the course of abner's life. i am particularly honored to have counted him are as a friend. so many times he would give me a call of encouragement when we were going through some tough decision making. i can't tell you how much it meant to hear from him

personally. he was always, as i said, my north star and my hero in political life. and with his old buddy paul simon, his roommate, they probably inspired this senator as much as any two people who have been living during my tenure in public service. i stand today in tribute to a great man and a great american and a person who made this a better country and illinois a better state, abner mikva of illinois. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: i remember, it happened yesterday or eternities ago. a young jewish boy discovered the kingdom of knight.

i remembered his bewilderment, i remember his anguish. it all happened so fast. the ghetto, the deportation, the sealed cattle car, the fiery altar upon which the history of our people and the future of mankind were meant to be sacrificed. i remember he asked his father, can this be true? this is the 20th century, not the middle ages. who would allow such crimes to be committed? how could the world remain silent? and now the boy is turning to me. tell me, he asks, what have you done with my future? what have you done with your life? and i tell him that i have tried, that i have tried to keep memory alive, that i have tried

to fight those who would forget. because if we forget, we are guilty, we are accomplices. and i explain to him how naive we were, that the world did know and remained silent. and that is why i swore never to be silent whenever, wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. we must take sides. neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. silence encourages the tormenter, never the tormented. sometimes we must interfere. when human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant.

wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must at that moment become the center of the universe. elie wiesel spoke these words, as he accepted the nobel peace prize. he was a living testimony to the vow "never forget." although he endured the unspeakable darkness of auschwitz, his defiant light burned ever brighter as he dedicated his immense talents to providing a voice not only for the jewish victims of the holocaust but also for the voiceless, the condemned, and the forsaken across the globe. elie tirelessly reminded the world that the savage horror of the third reich was not an aberration in the past that was

defeated in world war ii. he knew the poe teption for such general side al -- genocidal evil remains with us in the present and he warned that we must always be on guard against it. now that little boy who was always with him must always be with us. i was blessed to know personally elie and his incomparable wife marian. they have been powerful and fearless voices for justice no matter the cost. it is humbling to encounter true greatness embodied by elie and marian. when israel's prime minister benjamin netanyahu addressed a joint session of congress, it was one of the great privileges of my life to host he will lee wiesel and to join him on a panel, together discussion the profound threat posed by a nuclear iran.

a nuclear iran i believe is the single-greatest national security threat facing america. elie shared that view. never get is a critically important phrase. after our victory in world war ii, it might seem like a comforting affirmation of the fact that humanity is involved in a horror like the holocaust could never happen again. but never again is something more. hmore. elie wiesel is was a testimony that never again is a sacred vow. it is a promise that we will not take this for granted but we will be seaslessly vigilant because we know that while the evil of anti-see anti-semitism s dwelt'sed once in world war ii, it was not eradicated. to a.ssume in our sophisticated modern thaij we somehow transcended evil would be a tragic mistake.

we have seen the face of evil this year in the saddage -- savage isis murdering regardless of faith. and we see it even more clearly in the islamic republic of iran. which is seeking the world's deadliest weapons and the means to deliver them to make good on the many threats to annihilate not only the nation of israel but the entire free world. these are not empty words uttered by an ayatollah without consequence. they are not simply words to placate a domestic political audience. these are articles of faith with the iranian leadership, and they back them up with 35 years of violent hostility towards israel and the united states. last year the world marked the 75th anniversary of the liberation of auschwitz, and we

remembered the unspeakable atrocities of the death camps. we cannot afford a nuclear auschwitz. we all know iran's terrorist proxies, hamas, hezbollah, and palestinian islamic jihad have engaged in vicious terror attacks against both our nations and already too many of our citizens. -- have been killed and maimed. and we know that the danger posed by iran is not a thing of the past. their intention is too use these weapons of destruction. this threat should not be a partisan issue. this threat should unite us because that's the only way we will be able to defeat this threat.

and defeat it we must because iran's threat is not only to wipe us off the map but to erase us from the historical record altogether. think about that for a moment. the stated objective of the ayatollah khomeini is a world without even the memory of the united states of america, the great satan, as they call us, or even a memory of israel, the little satan, as they call israel. together we can stop that threat, just as we did in world war ii. together we can stand up and repudiate this catastrophic iranian nuclear deal that sends billions of dollars to islamic terrorists committed to our murder. together we can look evil in the eye and call it by its name.

and we can do what we must to ensure that the vow of "never again" is fulfilled. elie wiesel left an extraordinary legacy. his memory is a blessing. it's an inspiration. but it is also a challenge to keep his legacy burning in our hearts. our prayers go out to marion and to you all of elie's loved ones. may he rest in peace. but may every one of us rise to answer the call to truth and justice that elie wiesel championed each and every day. madam president, a second topic that i wish to address on the floor today. last week, as many of us were looking forward to independence day, vacations with our family, fireworks, hot dogs by the grill, another family was mourning a loss.

the loss of a daughter, the loss of a life, a loss that should never have occurred. last friday was the one-year anniversary of the senseless killing of a vivacious 32-year-old young woman, kate steinle. she was shot as she was walking arm and arm with her dad on a san francisco pier. as of bullet tore through her, she collapsed to the ground, crying out, "dad, help me. help me." she died two hours later. as the father of two daughters, i cannot imagine the anguish, the heartbreak that was going through mr. steinle as he held his dying daughter. her murderer was an illegal alien, and he wasn't just any illegal alien. he was one who had already been deported five times.

on top of that, he had a long rap sheet that included up to seven felonies. madam president, what was he doing on that san francisco pier? he should never have been there. and if he was not there, kate steinle would be alive today. just a few months before killing kate, this illegal alien was released from the custody of the san francisco sheriff's office, even though the immigration and customs enforcement, the federal agency responsible for deporting illegal aliens, had requested that he remain in custody. the federal government said keep this criminal illegal alien in custody, and the san francisco sheriff said, no, we will release him to the public. the san francisco sheriff's office refused to honor that request because of a so-called sanctuary city policy that prohibits the san francisco sheriffs deputies from

cooperating with federal immigration enforcement officers. local cities putting in place policies that prohibit local law enforcement from working to keep our country safe. the sad truth is that kate should be alive today, but she isn't because the federal government failed her. it has failed to secure the border. it has failed to faithfully and vigorously enforce the immigration laws that are on the books. it has failed to strengthen those laws to deter illegal aliens like kate's killer from coming back over and over and over again. and it has failed to enforce the law against sanctuary jurisdictions which now number in the hundreds all across america, that aid and abet illegal aliens evading deportation. the president of the united states is the officer charged by

the constitution with the sole responsibility to faithfully execute the law. when his administration tolerates and encourages lawlessness, is it any surprise that terrible things happen? we must put an end to this administration's lax enforcement of our immigration laws which threatens the safety and security of the american people. and we should begin by putting a stop to sanctuary cities which this administration has been unwilling to do on his own. a real president faithful to the constitution wol end sanctuary cities bill cutting off money to any jurisdiction openly defying federal immigration law. that's why i'm a proud cosponsor of senator toomey's stop sanctuary cities act which would withhold federal grant money to cities which would refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement officers. cities that flout federal laws

should not be rewarded with federal taxpayer dollars. we must also address the persistent problem of aliens like kate's killer who illegally reentered this country after deportation. that's why i introduced exactly one year ago an earlier version of kate's law. unfortunately no action was taken on that bill until it was incorporated into senator vitter's stop sanctuary policies act, and then senate democrats voted in virtual lock step to defeat the bill. last fall i went again to the senate floor and asked for the unanimous consent to pass kate's law as a stand-alone bill, but the senior senator from california, the very state where kate's senseless murder had occurred, stood on this floor and objected. today i thank senate majority leader mitch mcconnell for scheduling a vote on kate's law

and a separate vote on stopping sanctuary cities for giving this body another chance to address the problem, to listen to the people. the time for politics is over. we should come together and protect the american people. it is a time to confront the sobering issue of illegal aliens, many of whom have serious criminal background and yet who are allowed to illegally reenter this country with impunity. kate's law would do three things. first, it would increase the maximum criminal penalties for illegal reentry from two to five years. second, it would create a new penalties of up to ten years in prison for any person who has been denied admission or deported three or more times and then illegally reenters the country. and finally, and most importantly, it would create a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for anyone convicted of illegal reentry who, like kate's

killer, had an aggravated felony prior to deportation. or had been convicted of illegal reentry twice before. this class of illegal aliens have a special disregard and disdeign for our nation's law. violent criminals who keep coming in over and over and over again, and all too often these illegal aliens have criminal records that go back years or even decades. in 2012, for example, just over one quarter of the illegal aliens apprehended by the border patrol had prior deportation orders. that's an astounding 99,420 illegal aliens. in fiscal year 2015, of the illegal reentry offenders who were actually convicted -- that's 15,715 offenders -- the majority had extensive or recent

criminal histories. at least one-third had a prior aggravated felony conviction. but even though the majority of offenders had criminal records, the average prison sentence was just 16 months, down from an average of 22 months in 2008. in fact, more than a quarter of illegal reentry offenders received a sentence below the guidelines range because the government sponsored the low sentence. clearly we are failing to adequately deter deported illegal aliens from illegally reentering the country, especially those with violent criminal records. that's why we need to pass kate's law. we must increase the risks, the penalties for those who would contemplate illegally returning to the united states to commit acts of murder. i want to thank all of the leaders in this body. i want to thank leaders like

bill o'riley for shining a light on this vital issue. this vote ought to be an easy decision. just ask yourself with whom do i stand? i hope that my colleagues, democrats and republicans, will choose to stand with the american people, the people who we should be protecting rather than convicted felons like kate steinle's killer. it is worth noting that the city of san francisco, bright blue democratic san francisco, voted out the sheriff after the murder of kate steinle. all americans, regardless of democrat, republican, libertarian, independent, all americans deserve to be protected, and we need a government that stops allowing violent illegal aliens to prey on the innocents. if our democratic colleagues make the choice to put politics over protecting innocent

americans by refusing to enforce our immigration laws, the consequences of that are immense. doing so is quite literally playing with people's lives. this isn't hyperbole. it is unfortunately just a fact. kate's death tragically was not just an isolated occurrence, as much as we all wish that were the case. just last week an illegal alien killed three innocent people and wounded a fourth outside a blueberry farm in oregon. according to i.c.e. officials the illegal alien has been deported an astounding six times since 2003. enough is enough. stop letting in violent illegal aliens who are murdering innocent americans. this should bring us all together. how many more of these terrible

acts must we endure until congress acts? what does it take to break the partisan gridlock and actually come together and protect the american people? the votes this afternoon will help answer that question. i very much hope we will not wait one day longer. i urge my colleagues to stand together united against lawlessness, to stand against dangerous criminal illegal aliens who flout our laws. and i urge each of us to hear the words of kate steinle: "help me, dad. help me, dad." that was the cry that went not just to a grieving father, but it is a cry that should pierce each and every one of us and move this body out of slumber

and into action to help and stand with the american people. i yield the floor, and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president, i would ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: thank you, madam president. madam president, i come to the floor today to speak out -- do i need unanimous consent to speak for 15 or 20 minutes? the presiding officer: the senator is free to speak. mr. tester: thank you. madam president, i come to the floor today to speak out against the g.m.o. labeling bill that we'll be considering a little bit later this week or next week and raise concerns for the millions of american families who want to know and who have the right to know exactly what is in their food. i have come to the floor before to endorse g.m.o. labeling legislation and to oppose efforts to keep folks in the dark when it comes to what they feed their families. this is an issue that impacts each and every one of us. every day, there is nothing more important than choosing the food

that we are about to eat. food provides us with nutrition and energy. good food helps our kids grow strong and helps us remain healthy as we get older. i strongly believe that when folks decide what food to purchase, they do so and should do so with all the information that they have available to them. unfortunately, members of this body want to keep folks in the dark. they don't want consumers to know exactly what's in the food they're eating. this fight is nothing new. back in 2013, i was here on the floor fighting against a piece of legislation called the montana -- monsanto protection act which gave blanket immunity to major seed companies whose products had been or could be a target of litigation, and earlier this year, i was in this chamber to fight against the dark act which trampled on the rights of states and consumers alike at the request of the food

industry. now, once again, the senate g.m.o. labeling bill provides major food corporations with an out where they can hide behind the complex q.r. code to prevent folks from knowing if their food contains genetically modified organisms, and it brings into question the very question of bioengineering. and it raises concerns about the growing influence that agribusiness has on this body. you see, madam president, this bill before us raises all these major concerns and much more. besides keeping folks in the dark and besides telling states that they cannot write their own consumer information laws, this bill gives the usda, the united states department of agriculture, complete authority to unilaterally interpret and implement the controversial provisions of this bill and to make things worse, this is not a collaborative bill.

this bill provides corporate agribusiness with handout after handout, but it really doesn't do a thing for family farm producers and the small amount of mom and pop shops, the operations that are backbones of our farming economy. quite frankly, it undermines the work of organic producers and ignores the folks who purchase organic products. to me, it is clear. this is a one-sided bill, a bill that benefits multinational corporations at the expense of family farmers and ranchers. so to be more specific, i want to talk about four major problems that i have with this bill. first, this bill mandates that companies who use genetically engineered ingredients disclose that information on the package. on the surface, this looks like a step forward, but as we dig a little deeper, the bill allows the companies to meet this

mandate in three ways. a written label on the package, which would be fine. a symbol created by the usda, which could also be fine. but then we have this, the q.r. bar code that folks have to scan using their smartphone to figure out whether it has genetically modified ingredients in the food that they are about to buy. yes, this bill allows companies to meet the disclosure requirement with this, a q.r. bar code. and if can you tell me what that says by looking at it, you're a much smarter man than i. the bill before us today specifically mandates the words next to q.r. code say "scan here for more information". those are the words in the bill. so if folks want to know if their cereal contains commodities that originated in a

lab, rather than read it on the package clear as a bell, rather than read the words on a package, they will first have to know that the q.r. code will provide them with information on whether that information -- that product contains g.m.o.'s and not just more marketing information or a coupon. you would have to know that the phrase "more food information" means information about g.m.o.'s, maybe, maybe not. then they would scan that code into their phone and hopefully they would have cell service in that grocery store, but what happens if they don't? that's not transparency. that's not the consumer's right to know. they could not tell. but if you somehow know that the phrase "more food information" means and you're fortunate enough to have wi-fi in your grocery store, you will be directed to a web site and then maybe you can learn about what's

really in the food. potentially genetically engineered products, although it's not clear what else you will have to read about or where that information will be hidden within that web site. and for other companies, maybe those who aren't as big as the big international agribusinesses, they will be allowed to hide that important information behind an 800 number. for a mom or dad who wants to know what's in her child's soup or bread, they will have to call many different 800 numbers in the aisles of a grocery store or scan many, many of these q.r. codes. anybody who has ever gone to a grocery store with a small child in tow knows that's not going to happen. it's probably not even going to happen if you don't have a small child in tow, quite frankly. between these ridiculous q.r. codes and the 1-800-numbers, mom or dad could easily end up standing in a grocery store for hours, scanning each individual product with a smartphone or dialing an international call center just to find out basic

information about what they're going to eat. this is completely ridiculous, a nightmare for consumers and an illusion of transparency. what if companies were allowed to use q.r. codes instead of basic nutritional information? what if you had to scan a bar code to find out how much fat was in a bag of chips, how much protein is in a can of beans or how much vitamin c is in a jug of orange juice, and the only clue you had was scan here for more information? you know, it's interesting. when i go to a score and buy orange juice, i buy orange juice that's not made from concentrate. it's my choice. i can read it right on the package. i've got to tell you i don't know if that orange juice is any better than the stuff that's made from concentrate, but it's written on the package, so i can determine what orange juice i

want to way. -- to buy. so if you don't want to buy food or you want to buy food with g.m.o.'s in it, you get to scan this doo dad here, this q.r. code, and then maybe if you hit the right webpage, you can find out what's in the food. we did this as a senate. we did this to allow people to know what's in their food. and we actually think this is an effective method to let people know what's in their food. how would folks in congress react if lobbyists and dark money campaigns began pushing to get all nutritional labels off our foods, the same way that this bill hides origins of our food? i can tell you there would be a ton of folks here on the floor who would be raising big, big hell rather than just a handful who really aren't afraid of monsanto or the other massive

food corporations. hiding basic information behind bar codes and 800 numbers is totally unacceptable. the united states senate should not be in the business of hiding information from consumers. when i grew up, i was always told the consumer is always right. we should be empowering those consumers, those american consumers with more information about their food that they purchase, not with less. don't take it from me. nine out of ten consumers say they want labeling required for genetically engineered foods. what's the problem with that? it's already done in 64 countries. when you bring up the issue of consumer rights, the ability of individuals to have some idea where their food comes, you're told that g.m.o.'s are perfectly safe. but that response completely misses the point and insults every single person who has ever asked about their source of food. what this is really about, it's

about consumers' right to know, not with a mickey mouse q.r. code, not with an 800 number that's different on every package of food that you're going to pick up, but with simple words that say product contains g.m.o. or it doesn't. that allows the consumer to make his choices. that will allow mothers and fathers around this country to be empowered, not to be controlled. 64 hundreds, including places you would never, ever think of transparency, places like russia, china, saudi arabia, require g.m.o. labeling. now, we're going to say if this bill passes -- and it had 68 votes last time it came to the floor -- that we have g.m.o. labeling. that is a joke. we've got a mickey mouse g.m.o. labeling law. so why is the united states the only developed country in the world that doesn't require an

easy to read g.m.o. label on their foods or an easy symbol that signifies it? there's a one word answer -- money. here's an example. in 2012, california's proposition 37, which would have required g.m.o. labeling, opponents of that labeling bill spent $45 million to defeat that proposition. supporters of that labeling bill spent about $7 million. monsanto alone spent $8 million. they outspent supporters alone. that was in 2012. in 2013 washington state had an initiative called 522 which required g.m.o. labeling. more than 20 million was spent in opposition. $600 of that came from washington residents, by the way. about $7 million was spent in support of campaign. $1.6 million came from washington residents. these campaigns and lobbying