there will be order in the senate.

vote: vote: the presiding officer: the sergeant at arms will restore order in the gallery.

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 65, the nays are 32. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. 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. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, the senate is not in order.

the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order. the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, some have taken yesterday's announcement by f.b.i. director comey as vindicating secretary clinton for her use of a private unsecure email server, but that would be exactly the wrong conclusion to draw. while the f.b.i. did not recommend that the former secretary of state be indicted, the concerns that i have previously raised time and time again have only been reaffirmed by the facts uncovered by director comey and the f.b.i.'s investigation. it is now clear beyond a reasonable doubt that secretary clinton behaved with extreme carelessness in her handling of classified information and that she and her staff lied to the

american people and at the same time put our nation at risk. first director comey said unequivocally that secretary clinton and her team were, and i quote, extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information, close quote. he went so far as to describe specific email chains that were classified at the top secret/special access program level at the time they were sent and received. in other words, at the highest classification level in the intelligence community. and remember, secretary clinton said that she never sent emails that contained classified information. well, that proved to be false as well. the f.b.i. director made clear that none of those emails should have been on an unclassified server, period, and that secretary clinton and her staff

should have known better. director comey noted that secretary clinton's actions were -- quote -- particularly concerning -- close quote -- because these highly classified emails were housed on a server that didn't have full-time security staff like those at the department and agencies -- other departments and agencies of the federal government. it's pretty clear that secretary clinton thought she could do anything she wanted, even if it meant sending classified information over her personal unsecure home server. it should shock every american that america's top diplomat, someone who has access -- had access to our country's most sensitive information, acted with such carelessness and in an above the law sort of manner. well, unfortunately, our threshold for being shocked at revelations like this has gotten unacceptably high. i saw a poll just reported

earlier today that -- or recently that 81% of the respondents in that poll believe that washington is corrupt. public confidence is at an all-time low. and we ask ourselves how could that be? well, unfortunately it's the sort of activity that we have seen coming from secretary clinton and her misrepresentations and frankly there's no way to sugarcoat it, her lies to the american people, lies that were revealed in plain contrast yesterday by secretary comey's announcement. secondly, we know the f.b.i. found that secretary clinton behaved at odds with the story she has been telling the american people, as i said a moment ago. to be blunt, yesterday's monument proved that she has not been telling the american people the truth for a long, long time now. when news of her private server first broke, secretary clinton

said, and i quote, i did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. there is no classified material, close quote. yesterday, director comey made clear that wasn't true, not by a long shot. in fact, he said more than 100 emails on her server were classified, and as i mentioned, that includes some of the highest levels of classification. we're talking not just about some abstraction here, mr. president. we're talking about people gaining intelligence, some in highly dangerous circumstances that have been exposed to our nation's adversaries because of the recklessness or extreme carelessness of secretary clinton and her staff. another example, secretary clinton also maintained that she gave the state department quick access to all of her work-related emails. well, again, according to

director comey, that wasn't true either. he said that the f.b.i. discovered several thousand work-related emails that secretary clinton didn't turn into the state department two years ago. from the beginning, secretary clinton and her staff have done their dead level best to play down her misconduct, even if that meant lying to the american people. to make matters even worse, director comey confirmed that secretary clinton's actions put our national security and those who are on the front lines protecting our national security in jeopardy. the f.b.i. director said that hostile actors had access to the email accounts of those on secretary -- with people secretary clinton regularly communicated with from her personal account. we know she used her personal email in the words of the f.b.i. director extensively while outside of the continental united states, including the

nations of our adversaries. the f.b.i.'s conclusion, the f.b.i.'s conclusion is it's possible that hostile actors gained access to her personal email account, which as i just said a moment ago included information classified at the highest levels recognized by our government. my point is this is not a trivial matter. we will remember several months ago, secretary gates, former secretary of defense and head of the c.i.a., served both in the george w. bush and the obama administrations, he said he thought that the odds were pretty high that russian, chinese and iranians had compromised clinton's server. again, all the time while she is conducting official business as being secretary of state for the united states government. it was also reported last fall that russian-linked hackers tried to hack into secretary clinton's emails on at least

five occasions. it's hard to know, much less estimate, the potential damage done to our nation's security as a result of this extreme carelessness demonstrated by secretary clinton and her staff. in reality, it's impossible for us to know for sure, but what's clear is that secretary clinton acted recklessly and repeatedly lied to the american people. and i should point out she didn't do so for any particularly good reason. none of the explanations secretary clinton has offered -- convenience and the like -- have held up to even the slightest scrutiny. her intent was obvious, though. it was to avoid the accountability that she feared would come from public recognition of her official conduct. so she wanted to do it in secret, away from prying eyes of government watchdogs and the american people. the f.b.i. may not have found

evidence of criminal intent, but there's no doubt about her intent to evade the law of the united states. not just criminal laws that director comey talked about, but things like the freedom of information laws which make sure that the american people have access to the information that their government uses to make decisions on their behalf. these are important pieces of legislation that are designed to give the american people the opportunity to know what they have a right to know so that they can hold their elected officials accountable. but in the end this isn't a case of just some political novice who doesn't understand the risks involved or someone who doesn't really understand the protocols required of a high-level government employee. this is a case of someone, as director comey pointed out, should have known better. i know secretary clinton likes

to talk about her long experience in politics, as a spouse of a president of the united states as she served as first lady, as united states senator, and then as secretary of state. but all of this experience, as director comey said, should have taught her better than she apparently learned. the bottom line is secretary clinton actively sought out ways to hide her actions as much as possible. and in doing so, she put our country at risk. for a secretary of state to conduct official business, including transmitting and receiving information that is classified at the highest levels known by our intelligence community, on a private, unsecured server while sensitive national defense information would likely pass through is not just a lapse of judgment. it's a conscious decision to put the american people in harm's

way. as director comey noted in similar circumstances, people who engage in what senator clinton did, secretary clinton did are -- quote -- "often subject to security or administrative sanctions." that is they're held accountable, if not criminally, in some other way. and he said obviously that's not within the purview of the f.b.i. but he said other people, even if they aren't indicted, will be subjected to security or administrative sanctions. secretary clinton evidently will not be prosecuted criminally, but she should be held accountable. from the beginning i've had concerns about what secretary clinton did and whether this investigation would be free of politics. however one feels about the latter, it's clear that secretary clinton's actions were egregious and that there's good reason why the american people simply don't trust her and why she should be held accountable.

mr. president, i would just say in closing, we know that there's an extensive investigation conducted by the f.b.i., and we know that director comey said that no reasonable prosecutor would seek an indictment and prosecute secretary clinton for her actions. that being the case, i would join my colleague, senator grassley, chairman of the senate judiciary committee, and others who have called for the public release of the f.b.i.'s investigation so we can know the whole story. that would also include the transcript from the three and a half hour interview that secretary clinton gave to the f.b.i. just, i believe it was last saturday. that way the american people can have access to all the information. but what i suspect it would reveal, because it is a crime, to lie to an f.b.i. agent, i suspect secretary clinton, perhaps for the first time in

her interview with the f.b.i., told the f.b.i. the truth. if i was her lawyer, i certainly would advise her no matter what happens, you better tell the truth in that f.b.i. interview because a cover-up is something you can be indicted for as well. so i suspect what happened is she in that f.b.i. interview, she did tell the f.b.i. the truth. and that's where director comey got so much of his information which he then used to dismantle brick by brick the public narrative that secretary clinton has been spinning to the american people for the last couple of years. if transparency and accountability are important, like director comey said yesterday, you would think that secretary clinton would want to put this hybrid -- put this behind her by also supporting the public release of this investigation as well as the transcript of her interview with the f.b.i. i'll be listening very carefully to see whether she joins us in

making this request. but under the circumstances where she no longer has any credible fear of indictment or prosecution, she owes it to the public and we owe it to the public that the entire evidence be presented to them in an open and a transparent way. and that's why the f.b.i. should release this information, but particularly the transcript of this interview she gave to f.b.i. agents for three and a half hours at the f.b.i.'s headquarters downtown. then and only then will the american people be able to render a well-informed and an adequate judgment on her actions taken as a whole. because right now there appears to be nothing but good reasons why in poll after poll after poll people say they just don't trust her. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to address the bill that is before us, a bill that presents itself as a labeling bill but which is deeply defective with three major loopholes that mean that this labeling bill will not label g.m.o. products. i'm going to lay out those challenges. but first i want to be clear that this is about american citizens right to know what's in their food. we have all kinds of consumer laws about right to know, but maybe there is nothing as personal as what you put in your mouth or what you feed to your family. that is why emotions run so deep. citizens have a right to make up their own mind. now we talk a lot about the

vision of our country being a "we the people" democracy, and certainly it's jefferson who said the mother principle of our republic is that we can call ourselves a republic only to the degree the decisions reflect the will of the people and that will only happen if the people have an equal voice. well, in this case we have a powerful enterprise, a company named monsanto that has come to this chamber with a goal, which is to take away the right of consumers across this nation, to take away the right of citizens across this nation, take away their right to know what is in their food. i am specifically referring to the monsanto dark act. why is it called the dark act? it's called the dark act because it's an acronym: deny americans' right to know. but it also very much represents the difference between light and

enlightenment that comes from information and knowledge and the darkness that comes from suppressing information. james madison, our country's fourth president and father of the constitution, once wrote knowledge will forever govern ignorance. and if people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. that is what this debate is about, whether citizens can arm themselves with the knowledge, arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives. and this act before us, the monsanto dark act, says no. we are not going to allow citizens to acquire in a simple way the information about whether the product they're considering buying has genetically modified ingredients. now there's something particularly disheartening about that, and that is this is one of

the few issues in the country that you can ask republicans, you can ask democrats, you can ask independents, and they all have the same answer. basically nine out of ten americans, regardless of party, want a simple indication on the package, does this container include g.m.o. ingredients. that's all. a simple consumer-friendly right to know. and this bill is all about taking that away. let me turn to the three big loopholes in this bill. monsanto loophole number one, a definition that exempts the three major g.m.o. products in america. isn't it ironic to have a bill where the definition of g.m.o. has been crafted in a fashion never seen anywhere else on this

planet, not used by any of the 64 currents around the world -- countries around the world that have a labeling law, and that it just happens to be crafted to exclude the three major monsanto g.m.o. products. well, what are those products? the first is g.m.o. corn when it becomes high-fructose corn syrup. well, it's g.m.o. corn, but under the definition high-fructose corn syrup from g.m.o. corn, it is suddenly not g.m.o. and let's talk about soybeans. g.m.o., monsanto g.m.o. soybeans, when it becomes soybean oil magically is no longer g.m.o. under the definition in this bill. or let's talk about sugar beets. monsanto g.m.o. sugar beets, while the sugar is produced and go into products, it is suddenly magically not g.m.o. sugar.

well, isn't it a coincidence that this definition not found anywhere else in the world except this bill, happens to exclude the three biggest products produced by monsanto? well, it's no coincidence. they're determined to make sure that they are not covered. high-fructose corn syrup, sugar from g.m.o. sugar beets, soy oil from g.m.o. soybeans, none of those are covered. this has been an issue of some debate because folks have said, well, the plain language in the bill might be overruled and modified by u.s. department of agriculture when they do rules. well, of course a rule that contravenes the plain language of the bill would in fact not stand. it wouldn't be authorized. so what is the plain language of the bill say? it says the term bioengineering and any similar term as

determined by the secretary refers to a food that contains genetic material that has been modified. that was the magic language not found anywhere else in the world. contains genetic material that has been modified. because when you make high-fructose corn syrup, when you make sugar from sugar beets, when you make soybean oil from soybeans, that information is stripped out and that is what magically transforms a g.m.o. ingredient to a non-g.m.o. ingredient. they have a second loophole, and that loophole says for which the modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding. well, the could factor here certainly raises all kinds of questions. well, in theory is it possible to obtain through natural selection what we obtain through genetic engineering? suddenly it's not genetic engineering. we haven't been able to find out exactly which crop they're trying to protect, wave that magic wand and convert a g.m.o. crop into a non-g.m.o. crop.

but certainly it's there for a specific purpose. what does this mean then? this means that if you look around the world and you are examining the labeling laws from the european union or from brazil or from china, corn oil is covered, soybean oil, sugar from sugar beets, all of those if they come from a g.m.o. corn, g.m.o. soybean or g.m.o. sugar beets, they're all covered. they're covered everywhere in the world except magically in this bill. so we have consulted many experts. the language of the bill is very clear, but many experts have weighed in and they say things like this: they say this definition leaves out a large number of foods derived from g.m.o.'s such as corn and soy o*eul, sugar beet sugar. that is because although these products are derived from or are g.m.o.'s the level of d.n.a. in

these products is very low and generally not sufficient to be detected in d.n.a. base assays. that is loophole number one. let's turn to number two, monsanto loophole number two. what this loophole is is this law doesn't actually require a label that there are g.m.o. ingredients. it has a couple options voluntary. those options already exist in law. that's not giving anything that we don't have currently. a manufacturer is allowed under this law to put in a phrase and say that this product is partially derived from g.m.o. ingredients or partially made from g.m.o. ingredients. they can do that right now. it also says that the usda will develop a symbol, and that symbol can be put on a package to indicate it has g.m.o. ingredients. well, somebody can voluntarily put on a symbol right now, but the default, if you don't do those things voluntarily that actually disclose that it has

g.m.o. ingredients, this is the default. this is the default. we see here this bar code. it's also referred to as a quick response code. it says scan this for more information, scan me. of course, package after package across america already have bar codes. package after package already have quick response codes as these are referred to, these square computer codes. scan me for more information. it doesn't say that there are g.m.o. ingredients in this package. it doesn't say scan here for more information on the g.m.o. ingredients in this food. no, just scan me. well, certainly this defies the ability of anyone to look at that and say whether or not there is g.m.o. ingredients. all it does is take you to a web

site. how do you get to that web site? you have to have a smartphone, you have to have a digital plan that you pay for, you have to have wireless coverage at the point you're there. you have to scan and go to a web site -- a web site, by the way, that would be written by the company that makes the food so it's not going to be easy to find that information. the bill says it will be in the first page of the web site. there could be a lot of stuff on that first page, always in a different format. and so this is not a label. this is an obstacle course. it's an obstacle course that causes you to spend your own money and your digital time. now, if i want to compare five different products and see if they have a g.m.o. ingredient and i've got, let me say, i don't know, five versions of canned carrots, i can pick up that can, i can turn it. if there is a symbol or a phrase that says partially produced with genetically modified ingredients, i can pick that up, i can turn it over and in one second i can get the answer.

just like in one second i can get the answer about the number of calories. in one second, i can get the answer of whether it contains peanuts. i can get the answer on how much sugar it has in one second. so i can compare these five products in five seconds, which one, oh, here's the one i want. i want one that does have g.m.o., i want one that doesn't have g.m.o. that's a g.m.o. label. this is an obstacle course. this provides no details unless you go through a convoluted system that takes up a lot of time. so if i want to compare those five products, i would have to stand in the aisle of a grocery store for 30 minutes trying to go to different web sites, hoping that there was wireless code and quite frankly that whole process, no one would do that, and that's exactly why monsanto wants this code, because no one will use it, they don't know that they should use

it for g.m.o. ingredients because it doesn't say it, and they know that it will take so much time that no busy person or not so busy person would see that as a significant way to obtain the data desired. now, let's say i'm going to shop for 20 things. i have to spend ten hours, if each of those things require comparing five products, if it was a one-second label, i could take up 50 seconds of my time shopping for 20 products or 100 seconds of my time, excuse me, 100 seconds of my time. but in this case, if it took a half an hour per product, i would be ten hours standing in the grocery store on just 20 items trying to find out which variety happened to not contain g.m.o. so that obstacle course combined with the definition that excludes monsanto products

comprise monsanto loophole number one and monsanto loophole number two. but there is a third loophole in this bill. wouldn't it be wonderful, monsanto says, to have a bill with no enforcement in it? now, when we look at other labeling laws, there is always enforcement. you violate this. $1,000 fine. you violate it again, $1,000 fine or something of that nature. this is a type of provision we had in our cool act. what was cool? cool, country of origin labeling, the cool act. well, that was something that required labeling to say that meat, specifically pork and beef, has to whether it had been grown and processed in the united states of america. so i, as a patriotic american, wanted to support american farmers, american ranchers, i could do so because the meat had

a label, and what was -- what was the consequence of failing to provide that label? there was a fine. this bill does not have a usda fine. this bill does not have any enforcement. they can't explicitly it's very clear they cannot recall any product. they cannot ban a product going to market. the only consequence in this bill is the secretary could have the possibility of doing an audit of a company that had been the subject of complaints, and he could disclose the results of an audit. so he could say -- in a press release, he would say we've done an audit of this company and they're not following the law. that's a consequence, just a public announcement. well, hardly, hardly anything that's compelling. it just invites people to ignore this -- this law. and so at every level, monsanto has undermined this being a

legitimate labeling law. a definition that excludes the big monsanto products. an obstacle course instead of a label, and no enforcement. this bill says we oppose the bill because it is actually a nonlabeling bill under the guise of a mandatory labeling bill. that sums it up. it pretends to be a labeling bill but it's not, and this is a letter signed by 76 pro-organic organizations and farmer groups. i had to do this very quickly. you see, there has been no hearing on this bill. this unique never in the world definition that exempts the monsanto products, there has never been a hearing. what kind of deliberative body is the u.s. senate when it is afraid to hold a hearing because people might point out that a very powerful special interest,

monsanto, had written a definition that excludes their own products? apparently, senators are quaking in their boots for fear that the public might find out that they just voted on a bill with a definition that excludes monsanto products. so they didn't want to risk a hearing that would make that clear. well, i'm so appreciative of these groups. you can't make out this print certainly, but it just gives you a sense of what type of groups we're talking about, from across the country. the center for food safety, food and water watch, biosafety, the cedar circle farm, central park west, food democracy, farm aid, family farm defenders, good earth natural foods. on and on and on because these groups believe that citizens have a right to know what's in their food.

now, some folks have said well, they don't deserve to have that right because this food isn't going to do them any harm. boy, isn't that big brother talking once again, how the powerful federal government is going to make up your mind for you and not going to allow you to have that power that comes from knowledge. james madison, he wrote, as i noted earlier, that knowledge will forever govern ignorance and a people who mean to be their own governors would arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives, but big brother says we don't want the people to have the power of knowledge. we don't let them make up their own decision. why is it so many people feel so powerfully about this issue? well, first, various groups have determined that a major genetic modification that makes crops weed killer resistant is a

health issue. why is it a health issue? because glyphosate is a probable carcinogenic substance. that's something people have a right to be concerned about. in areas where glyphosate is sprayed on crops, it has shown up in the rainfall, it has shown up in the europe of people who live in that area. so do people have a right to be concerned about the fact that a weed killer is being sprayed and is showing up in their europe? yes, i think they do have a right to be concerned about that. do they have a right to be concerned about the impact when this massive amount of weed killer flows off of the farms and into our streams and rivers because that weed killer proceeds to kill organisms in the rivers, in the streams, altering the biology of the stream? yes, they have a right to be worried about that. do they have a right to be concerned when the huge application of glyphosate, this weed killer, is producing super

weeds, that is, weeds growing near the fields that are exposed so often that mutations that make them naturally resistant proceed to produce weeds that are resistant to glyphosate, meaning you have to put even more weed killer on the crops. do they have a right to be concerned when there's a genetic moth if i occasion called b.t. corn that actually causes pesticide to grow inside the cells of the corn plant? what is the impact of that on human health? we don't yet know, and yet that particular genetic modification that causes pesticide to be grown inside the cells of the plant is covering more than 90% of the corn grown in america. that's a legitimate concern. do the citizens have a right to be concerned when they discover that the insects of pesticide ie designed to kill are evolving

and becoming superpests and becoming immune to that pesticide. now the farmer has to apply pesticide to the field as well, which was the whole goal of ignoring that in the first place, that you wouldn't have to do that, that they have a right to be concerned. they have a right to educate themselves. they have a right to make their own decision. this is a big brother bill if there ever was one, saying for those who supported cloture on this bill, this bill says citizens do not have the right to know. we're going to have a label that actually doesn't label. we're going to have a label that is an obstacle course. we're going to have a definition that excludes a commonly understood definition of what g.m.o. crops are, and we're going to have no enforcement. this is not good work. this is not a deliberative senate. let's send this bill to committee and have a complete

hearing on the deficiencies i'm talking about. let's invite monsanto to come and testify. let's invite the many, many scientists who have weighed in about the fact that this exempts the primary g.m.o. of crops products in america. let them come and speak. let all of us get educated. let's not have this rammed through the senate at the very last moment. now, there are individuals here who said wait, time is -- time is urgent because we can't have 50 different state labeling standards. well, we only have one state that has a labeling standard, and that's vermont. so no real concern that we have two conflicting standards because we only have one standard. now, could there be more than one standard down the road? yes, that's a possibility, but that's down the road. that doesn't require us to act today. and there are folks who said well, the vermont law, it goes into effect july 1 so we have to

act now to prevent the vermont law from going into effect. well, the vermont law has a six-month grace period, so it doesn't go into effect until january 1 of 2017. we have lots of time to hold hearings. we have lots of time to embrace knowledge rather than to convey and enforce ignorance, lots of time. so these arguments that are made about the urgency, they're phony arguments. they're made to take and enable a powerful special interest to push through a bill that 90% of americans disagree with. to do it essentially in the dark of night by not having hearings, not on the house side, not on the senate side, not having a full debate on this floor. no, instead we're using an instrument that is a modification of a house bill, that is a modification of a senate bill because procedurally it makes it easier to ram this bill through without due

consideration. that is just wrong. what i am asking for is the simple opportunity to have a series of reasonable amendments voted on on the floor of this senate. let's actually embrace the senate as a deliberative body. there is an amendment that would fix the definition. senator tester's amendment from montana. that amendment would simply say that the derivatives of g.m.o. crops are g.m.o. irch ingredients. g.m.o. soybean is g.m.o. ingredient. many proponents of the bill say they think that's what's going to happen with regulation down the road. then join us. let's correct the definition right now. why have law cases? why go into our july break

having passed something with a definition that we don't even have consensus on what it means? i know what the plain language says. i know it exempts g.m.o. crops but some say well, maybe not. maybe something usda can do, can change that and it will be covered. they were asked that question and wouldn't answer it directly. they sent back this very convoluted answer. well, foods that might have g.m.o. ingredients, non-g.m.o. ingredients might be covered based on what other ingredients are in the food. no. if the question was would soybean oil from g.m.o. soybean be considered g.m.o. ingredient? that's the question. usda just answered it yes or no, not this long convoluted lengthy dodging that occurred because you're afraid to answer the question because that would be knowledge that we could use here on the floor of the senate.

would high fructose corn syrup from g.m.o. corn be considered a g.m.o. ingredient? well, usda wouldn't answer those questions directly, but lots of other folks did. f.d.a., food and drug administration, answered the question in technical guidance. said absolutely they wouldn't be covered. all kinds of other experts weighed in and said expliewtly they wouldn't -- absolutely they wouldn't be covered. maybe that's the type of information that we should have from a hearing on this bill. so how about we vote on a simple amendment that clears up this confusion? that clearly uses a definition, not one written by and for exempting three major g.m.o. crops. a simple straightforward definition that is used elsewhere, that covers the entire ordinarily considered g.m.o. products. that's not too much to ask. let's have a debate on that amendment. we should vote on whether or not we're going to have a clear definition in this bill. let's vote on changing the qr

code. can you put up the q.r. chart again. the q.r. code has a phrase in it. it says "scan here for more food information." what if this simply said scan here for information on g.m.o. ingredients? now we have a g.m.o. label. now it would be truthful, authentic to say that this bill is going to require a g.m.o. label simply by saying scan here for g.m.o. ingredients in this product. let's have an amendment that changes that language. well, i have such an amendment and i'd like to see us have a vote on it because the proponents who are saying this is a g.m.o. labeling bill, this would actually make it a g.m.o. labeling bill. and i know that the two senators from vermont, each have an

amendment that they would like to have considered, one of which would take the vermont standard and make it the national standard. well, so there's one single national standard and another which would grandfather in vermont and say let's not roll over the top of vermont. and maybe there's a couple of other senators who have things that would improve this. how about an amendment that would actually put in the same authority to levy fines that we have on the country of origin labeling law. i have that amendment. what about a vote on that amendment? these should be things that we could come together on because if you truly want to have a national labeling standard, you want a definition that has integrity, a definition that's consistent with what is commonsly understood to be a -- commonly understood to be a g.m.o. you want to have a label that indicates there's g.m.o. ingredients inside because that's authenticity. you want to have the ability to have the u.s. department of agriculture lerve eye a fine if people -- levy a fine if people

disobey the laws so it has some teeth in it, has some compelling force. that's what i'm asking for. let's have a vet on -- vote on several basic amendments rather than blindly embracing ignorance and denying americans the right to know. thank you, mr. president. mr. president, parliamentary inquiry. do i need to make any specific request to reserve the balance of my one hour? the presiding officer: no, the hour remains. mr. merkley: thank you very much, mr. president.

,

the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: i rise today to emphasize the importance of the milcon zika bill. i also serve on the subcommittee that drafted the military construction and veterans affairs appropriations bill. the significance of this legislation cannot be overstated. sadly, sadly, we have watched the senate democrats play politics with critical funding for our military, our veterans, and for funding to combat zika. in my view, this stunt -- and i call it a stunt because i think that's what it is -- is both dangerous and disheartening. it is an insult to the men and women who sacrifice so much to keep us safe. and it is a reckless game to

play with our veterans and public health across this country. the conference report includes record-level funding for america's veterans. it fully funds the v.a.'s request for veterans' medical services and provides an overall increase of nearly 9% for our veterans' programs. it includes measures for the department of the veterans affairs to improve access and efficiency of health care services. we certainly know we have a long way to go before we get satisfaction there. we have a long way to go to reduce these backlogs and claim processing. to strengthen -- to strengthen our whistle-blowers protection and improve information technology and medical research. the drug epidemic plaguing our nation has, unfortunately, hit our veterans' community particularly hard, especially my home state of west virginia. the overdose rate in my state is more than twice the national average. with almost 40% of our state's veterans using the v.a. health

care system, it's vital that we strengthen the v.a.'s ability to help treat opioid addiction. whether our veterans are recovering from injuries obtained during their service or tending to their daily health needs, this bill provides funding to give veterans a new lease on lievment this includes supporting the v.a.'s opioid safety initiative, something i have been involved with, which improves pain care for those who have a higher risk of opioid-related overdoses. it also encourages the v.a. to continually expand treatment services and better monitor our at-risk veterans. another thing we can do for our veterans is ensure that they have ample employment opportunities as they transition into civilian life. another problem that we've identified. in west virginia where the majority of our veterans live in rural areas -- and as many of you know, most of the whole stale state is rural -- the

unemployment rate is almost 2% higher hasn't the overall national average. i recently witnessed something that was very interesting to see, an integrative agritherapy program that helps our veterans cope with ptsd. it also arms our veterans with skills they can use to start a business. i have met several veterans who have embarked on an agritherapy program using bees. at geezer ridge farm, i saw veterans use bee keeping to help overcome ptsd. to date the program has helped create 150 new veteran-ownerred farms. the benefits of agritherapy has been acknowledged by publications like "psychology today" and "newsweek." however, we do need research to further explore the benefits of this type of treatment. this is why i authored a provision in this bill calling

for a pilot program at the v.a. to better understand agritherapy, and i am h excited about what we learned. i met a veteran who was suffering from ptsd who was seeing a therapist once a week because he was having such difficulty coping at the v.a., and he got interested in this bee keeping, and he began to grow a business, learn about bees and pollen and honey and the queen bee and all those keystone x.lkinds of things, anw he only sees a therapist every other manhattan t month. he has such relief and gives him such a good, positive outlook for his future just by having this type of therapy available him to. this bill also prior prioritizes a full range of programs to ensure that we honor our commitment to our men and women in uniform and we deliver the services that our veterans have dutifully earned. let's talk for a moment about a growing public health threat

facing us, and that is the zika virus. we've all heard about t we've seen pictures of children who have been born from mothers who have been infected by zika, and it's a very disheartening, sad, and difficult -- difficult issue to see and to think about those young families starting out. this conference report includes $1.1 billion to tackle zika. with every conversation i have and every statistic and article that i have read, i grow more concerninged. i think everybody does. i've spoke to a group of young students just the other day. young students are tuning into what this difficult problem s after hearing testimony before the appropriations committee and meeting with the c.d.c. director, i understand the immediate need to provide funds for research, prevention, and

treatment. we are all vulnerable to what the c.d.c. director told me was an unprecedented threat. and we must act to protect ourselves and prevent the spread of this deadly virus. we must do it smartly, efficiently, and without wasting our taxpayers' dollars. this conference report that is stalled, that is stuck in this stunt, does just this. it takes the necessary and reasonable actions to protect americans from an outbreak. the $1.1 billion allocate i had in this -- allocated in this conference report is the same amount that the democrats supported just last month. when an amendment addressing zika funding passed out of the senate. doesn't make sense. their reasoning for opposing this funding lacks merit. the conference report does not prohibit access to any health service. in fact, it provides the same access to health services that was in the president's request.

the conference report even expands access to services by boosting funding for our community health centers, public health departments, and hospitals in areas most directly affected by zika. the safety and health of americans should be our number-one priority. sadly, the other side has chosen to prioritize politics over the american people. we will have another opportunity to vote on this conference report, and i am hopeful that my democratic colleagues will do the right thing. rather than blocking critical funding for veterans and the zika response, we need to join together to send this kfns report to the -- conference report to the president's desk as soon as possible. thank you.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we're not. mr. thune: mr. president, last week terrorists wearing suicide vests entered the istanbul airport and opened fire on travelers before detonating their vests. 45 people were killed and more than 200 were injured. while no group has yet claimed responsibility, turkish officials believe that isis was behind the attack. mr. president, the list of

isis-related terrorist attacks in the united states and against our allies is steadily growing. paris, san bernardino, brussels, orlando, istanbul, and then of course there's the constant barrage of attacks in the middle east like last week's deadly attack in baghdad that resulted in the death of 250 people. so far the attacks in the united states have been inspired by rather than carried out by isis but that could change at any moment. in the wake of the istanbul attack, c.i.a. director john brennan stated he would be surprised if isis isn't planning a similar attack in the united states. mr. president, given the terrorist violence in recent months, it's no surprise that a recent fox news poll found that an overwhelming majority of americans, 84% -- 84%, mr. president -- think that -- and i quote -- "most americans today are feeling more nervous

than confident about stopping terrorist attacks. and, mr. president, unfortunately they have reason to be nervous. because under president obama, we are not doing what we need to be doing to stop isis. for proof of that, we have president obama's own c.i.a. chief who made it clear the meshes we have taken to stop isis have not proven. director brennan stated -- and i quote -- "unfortunately, despite all our progress against isil on the battlefield and in the financial realm, our efforts have not reduced the group's terrorism capability and global reach." let me repeat that, mr. president. our efforts have not reduced the group's terrorism capability and global reach, that from c.i.a. director brennan. that's a pretty serious indictment of the obama administration's isis strategy

or lack thereof. mr. president, if our efforts have not reduced isis terrorism capability and global reach, then our efforts are failing. and we need a new plan. but that's something that president obama seems unlikely to produce, despite a halfhearted campaign against isis, the president has never, never laid out a comprehensive strategy to defeat the terrorist group. and as a result, isis terrorism capability and global reach are thriving. mr. president, keeping americans safe from isis requires a comprehensive approach. it requires not just containing, but decisively defeating isis abroad. it requires controlling our borders and strengthening our immigration system. it requires us to give law enforcement and intelligence agencies the tools and funding they need to monitor threats abroad and here at home. and it requires us to secure the homeland by addressing security

weaknesses that would give terrorists an opening to attack. unfortunately, president obama's failed to adequately address these priorities. and at this late date the president is unlikely to change his approach. mr. president, the republican-led senate can't force the president to take the threat posed by isis seriously, but we are committed to doing everything that we can to increase our nation's security. a key part of defeating isis abroad is making sure that the men and women of our military have the equipment, the training, and the resources that they need to win battles. this month the senate will take up the annual appropriations bill to fund our troops. this year's bill focuses on eliminating wasteful spending and redirecting funds to modernizing our military and increasing troop pay. it rejects president obama's plan to close guantanamo bay and bring suspected terrorists to our shores.

and it funds our efforts to defeat isis abroad. mr. president, the bill received unanimous bipartisan support in the appropriations committee. i'm hoping the outcome will be the same on the senate floor. last year the democrats chose to play politics with this appropriations bill and voted to block essential funding for our troops no fewer than three times. even though they had no real objections to the actual substance of the bill. well, mr. president, playing politics with funding for our troops is never acceptable, but it's particularly unacceptable at a time when our nation is facing so many threats to our security. i hope that this time around senate democrats will work with us to quickly pass this legislation. in addition to funding our military and other key aspect to protecting our nation from terrorist threats is protecting our borders. we have to know who is coming into our country so that we can keep out terrorists and anyone else who wants to harm us. and if criminals and suspected

terrorists do make it across our borders, we need to apprehend them immediately. one thing we can do right now to improve our ability to keep criminals and suspected terrorists off our streets is to eliminate so-called sanctuary cities. right now more than 300 cities across the united states have policies in place that discourage local law enforcement from cooperating with immigration officials. that means that when a homeland security official asks local authorities to detain a dangerous felon or suspected terrorist until federal authorities can come collect the individual, these jurisdictions may refuse to help. sanctuary city policies have resulted in the release of thousands of criminals who could otherwise have been picked up by the department of homeland security and deported. senator toomey has offered a bill to discourage these policies by withholding certain federal funds from jurisdictions that refuse to help federal

officials keep dangerous individuals off the streets. i have to say i'm deeply disappointed, mr. president, the senate democrats chose this afternoon to block this important legislation. by opposing this bill, democrats are complicit in making it easier for felons and suspected terrorists to threaten our communities. mr. president, giving our intelligence and law enforcement agencies the tools that they need to track terrorists is one of the most important ways that we can prevent future attacks. in june, the senate took up an amendment to give the f.b.i. authority to obtain records of suspected terrorists, electronic transactions like what web sites they visited and how long they spent on those sites. the f.b.i. has stated that obtaining this authority is one of its top legislative priorities. the agency already has authority to obtain similar telephone and financial records. but what the f.b.i. director described as essentially a typeo

in the law has so far prevented the f.b.i. from easily obtaining the same records for web sites. fixing this intelligence gap would significantly improve the f.b.i.'s ability to track suspected terrorists and to prevent attacks. mr. president, unfortunately again the majority of senate democrats inexplicably voted against this amendment which i hope will be reconsidered in the senate in the near future. on top of that, democrats are threatening to block this year's commerce, justice, and science appropriations bill which provides the funding the f.b.i. and other key law enforcement agencies need to operate. mr. president, when the president's c.i.a. director testified before congress in june, he told members -- and i quote again -- "i have never seen a time when our country faced such a wide variety of threats to our national security." end quote.

well, given these threats, and especially given the recent isis-inspired attack on our own soil, it is both puzzling and deeply troubling that democrats would block the f.b.i.'s number-one priority and then play politics with the funding that would help the agency track suspected terrorists in our country. mr. president, as i mentioned above, the final essential element to protecting americans from terrorist attacks is addressing our vulnerabilities here at home. the recent terrorist attacks in istanbul and brussels highlighted vulnerabilities at airports that we need to address to prevent similar attacks in the united states. this afternoon the house and senate announced that they had reached agreement on a final version of aviation legislation. in addition to aviation safety measures and new consumer protections like guaranteed refunds of baggage fees for lost or seriously delayed luggage, this legislation provides one of the largest, most comprehensive

airport security packages in years. this legislation improves vetting of airport employees to address the insider terrorist threat, the risk that an airport employee would give a terrorist access to secure areas of an airport. it includes provisions to get more americans enrolled in precheck to reduce the size of crowds waiting in unsecured areas of our airports. and it contains measures to add more k-9 units and other security personnel at airports so that we're better able to deter attacks. in addition, the birth -- bill requires the t.s.a. to improve security check points to make the passenger screening process more efficient and effective. mr. president, i look forward to sending this legislation to the president by july 15. as the president's own c.i.a. director made clear, president obama's halfhearted approach to countering isis has failed to reduce the threat this terrorist organization poses.

i would like to think that the president will develop a greater seriousness about isis in the last six months of his presidency, i'm not holding out a lot of hope. but whatever, whatever the president does or fails to do, republicans here in the united states senate will continue to do everything we can to protect our country and to keep americans safe from terrorist attacks. i hope, mr. president, that democrats here in congress will join us. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i rise today with my colleague from maine, senator susan collins, to bring attention to the millions of americans living with alzheimer's disease and related dementias and the loving caregivers who take care of them. one in three seniors die -- who

die each year has alzheimer's or related dementia. the cost is incredible. in 2016 we'll spend $236 billion caring for individuals with alzheimer's. by 2050 these costs will reach $1.1 trillion. and the one thing we know is that we are seeing more and more people with -l alzheimer's. we're working diligently, all of our doctors, medical professionals for a cure but we know in the meantime we'll have many family members involved in taking care of them. so senator collins and i have introduced the alzheimer's caregiver support act which authorize grants to public and nonprofit organizations to expand training and support services for families and caregivers of patients with alzheimer's disease or related dementias. you think of these sisters and brothers and sons and daughters

and husbands and wives that are doing this care giving, and all they want to do is to have the best quality of life possible for their loved one with this devastating disease. and they want tock trained. -- to be trained. and if they don't have that ability to learn what tools they can use when someone around them just starts foregettinging what they say ten minutes before, they need to learn how to take care of them. because many of them want to do that, and our bill simply gives them the tools to do that. and i want to thank senator collins for her long-term leadership. i want to thank senator carper, who moved the schedule around a bit so we could talk about this important bill. i know senator collins wants to speak about this as well. ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, before i speak, i also want to send my appreciation to the senator from delaware. i rise today with my friend and colleague from minnesota,

senator klobuchar, to talk briefly about the bill that we've introduced, the alzheimer's caregivers support act, that would provide training and support services for the families and caregivers of people living with alzheimer's and other dementias. mr. president, as many caregivers can attest, alzheimer's is a devastating disease that exacts a tremendous personal and economic toll on individuals, families, and our health care system. it is, for example, our nation's most costly disease. it is one that affects more than 5.4 million americans, including 37,000 mainers living with alzheimer's today. and that number is soaring as our overall population grows

older and lives longer. we've done a good job last year and this year in increasing the investment in biomedical research that someday will lead to effective treatments, means of prevention, or even a cure for alzheimer's. but often forgotten when we discuss this disease are the caregivers. there are many families across this nation who know all too well the compassion, commitment and endurance that it takes to be a caregiver of a loved one with alzheimer's disease. when i was in maine recently, i saw an 89-year-old woman taking care of her 90-year-old husband with alzheimer's. i met a woman in her 50's who with her sisters was juggling care of their mother along with

demanding work schedules. i discussed with an elderly husband his own health problems as he tries to cope with taking care of his wife's dementia. most important, these caregivers allow many with alzheimer's to remain in the safety and the comfort of their own homes. last year, caregivers of people living with alzheimer's shouldered $10.2 billion in health care costs related to the physical and emotional effects of care giving, and that's why the -- the bill that senator klobuchar and i have introduced is so important. it would help us do more to care for our caregivers. it would award grants to public

and nonprofit organizations like area agencies on aging and senior centers to expand training and support services for caregivers of people living with alzheimer's. mr. president, it's been estimated that nearly one out of two of the baby boomer generation, our generation reaching 85 will develop alzheimer's if we are not successful with biomedical research. as a result, chances are that members of our generation will either be spending their golden years with alzheimer's or caring for someone who has it. it is, therefore, imperative that we give our family caregivers the support that they need to provide high-quality care. our legislation has been endorsed by the alzheimer's association, the alzheimer's foundation of america and us against alzheimer's, and i urge

all of our colleagues to support it. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent that my full statement be inserted in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: before they leave the floor, i just want to say a special thanks to senators klobuchar and collins for their leadership on this issue. this is one that hits close to home for me and my sister and our family. our mother had alzheimer's disease, her mother, her grandmother. so this is one we care a lot about. i applaud your efforts to work across the aisle and work together on a hugely important issue on a personal level as well as a financial way. i used to think that medicaid was a long-time -- i used to think it was a health care program for mostly moms and kids. as it turns out, most of the money that we spend on medicaid is for -- to enable elderly people, many of them with dementia, alzheimer's disease, to stay in nursing homes.

the lion's share of the money is actually for seniors, many of them with dementia and alzheimer's disease. the fiscal component and the personal human component. thank you for this. i have written down information about your bill. i will be researching it through the night and see if maybe i can join you as a cosponsor. thank you both. we appreciate you and what you're doing here. just before senators collins and klobuchar took the floor, one of our colleagues, one of my favorite republican colleagues, my three favorite republican colleagues spoke about isis and suggested that they are not doing too well in the battle against isis. i asked a friend how he is doing. he says compared to what. i just want to compare where we were with isis about two years ago. two years ago, isis was on the march. they were knocking on the door, knocking on the door of baghdad. they stormed through syria, through much of iraq, heading

toward baghdad and were stopped on almost the outskirts of baghdad. the question was can anybody stop them. the united states under the leadership of our president and other countries said let's put together the kind of coalition that george herbert walker bush put together when the iraqis invaded kuwait many years ago. and some of us may recall that we put together under the leadership of former president bush a coalition of i think more than 40 nations. everybody brought something to the fight in the coalition. we brought, among other things, some air power, some troops on the ground. other countries, the japanese didn't send any military forces but they provided money to help support the fight. we had sunni nations, we had shia nations, and we had nations from nato. it's a very broad coalition, and we were very successful, ultimately very successful in pushing saddam hussein and the iraqis out of kuwaiti and enable the kuwaitis to live today as a free people. so when we hear about how are

things going with respect to isis, let me just say this -- compared to what? well, compared to two years ago, a heck of a lot better. a whole lot better. you remember two years ago, isis had the iraqis on the run and the iraqis were running away -- iraqi soldiers were running away and leaving equipment for the isis folks to take over. the isis people came in and took control of oil fields and took over banks, eluded them. they were attracting two years ago 2,000 fighters per month. from around the world. 2,000 fighters a month going to iraq, going to syria to fight with isis. how about last month? 200. 200. two years ago, the -- the isis folks who were attracting to the fight in iraq and syria, ten americans two years ago, ten americans per month. last month, one american, one american. the land mass that iraq took over to create the isis -- the isis folks took over to create

their caliphate, they had taken over just about half of iraq. no, not that much, not half of iraq, but they had taken over large parts of iraq. and today we've retain -- with the alliance, we've retain i think at least half of it, at least half of that. we have retain with american air power, american intelligence some support on the ground, but mostly iraqis and kurds, other components of our coalition have enabled us to take -- the iraqis to retake the -- we call them the sunni triangle which includes ramadi, tikrit and fallujah. that's the triangle west of baghdad where a whole lot of the sunnis live. and a lot of the boots on the ground were not ours. the boots on the ground were those of the iraqi army, which is starting to show a sense of cohesiveness and a sense of fight that we didn't see two years ago. now we have up in the northern part of iraq a town called

mosul, a big city called mosul, which is being surrounded by forces of the alliance. they include not so much u.s. troops on the ground. we have some support for troops on the grouped. we certainly have air power there. we are providing a fair amount of help and intelligence. we will have elements of the kurds, their forces, iraqi army and some other forces, too, surrounding mosul. and my hope and expectation in relation to it is getting ready to gradually go into that city, try to do it in a way that the civilians there do not get killed, unnecessarily, so it's something that we're going to do it right but i think ultimately we'll be successful. and you go almost due west from mosul toward syria, you come to a big city called araka. that is essentially the capital, almost like the spiritual capital of the caliphate that the isis folks are trying to establish. araka is now being sort of approached from the southwest by

syrian army forces, russian air power, and for us from the northeast not american ground forces but kurds and others and u.s. air power. almost like a pinscher movement, if you will, two -- pincer movement. two forces that are not allies, one led by the u.s., the other by the russians, moving against a common target, and that's araka. so how are we doing? compared to what? compared to two years ago? we're doing a heck of a lot better. it's not just the u.s., we don't want to have boots on the ground, but there are a lot of ways we can help. it turns out there are a lot of other nations in our coalition that are helping as well. so far in this fight in the last, i don't know, 18 months or so, we have killed over i think 25,000 isis fighters, we have taken out roughly 120 key isis leaders, we have reduced the funds for isis by at least a third, cut in half, i'm told, the amount of moneys that they are getting from oil reserves,

from oil wells and so forth that they had taken over. and i -- it's not time to spike the football, but i think anybody who -- anybody would be evenhanded in terms of making progress toward degrading and destroying isis, it's not time to spike the football, but it's time to inflate the football, and we're on the march. we're on the march. not just us but a lot of others. we have two carrier groups, one in the mediterranean. we have another in the persian gulf. i understand there are f-16's, f-18's flying off those aircraft in support of these operations. we have b-52's still flying. they are operating out of qatar. we have a-10's n.r.a. operating out of some -- that are operating out of some places like iraq, maybe even out of turkey, maybe even out of jordan. not necessarily all of them. maybe even out of kuwait. but there are a lot of assets

involved, a lot of assets involved, and i think to good effect. i am a retired navy captain, served three tours in southeast asia during the vietnam war. not a hero like john mccain and some of our other colleagues, but was -- know a little bit about trying to do military operations with units of other branches of the service. even in the navy. naval air, submarines, working with ships, working with service ships. it's difficult. it's complicated. try to do that with other countries, speaking different languages and having different kinds of military traditions and operating norms. it's not easy to put together a 16-nation alliance and be an effective fighting machine all at once, but we're getting there, we're getting there. we're making progress. i'm encouraged. i would say just if i could add one more thing, and then i want to talk what i really want to talk about, mr. president. this is a fellow named peter bergen who is one of the

foremost experts i think in the country -- in the world maybe on jihadi terrorism, and he points out that the -- that the -- if you go back to the number of americans that have been killed since 9/11 by jihadi terrorists in this country, they have all been killed by american citizens or people that are here legally residing in this country. part of what we need to do is make sure the folks in this country don't get further radicalized. i think one of the best ways to make sure they are going to be radicalized is as we have one of our candidates for president saying we ought to throw all the muslims out of this country, send them all home. if that doesn't play in the hand of isis, i don't know what does. that's not the way to make sure we reduce the threat of jihadism in this country. it's like putting gasoline on the fire. what our -- the administration, what the department of homeland security is trying to do, what i'm trying to do through our committee of department of homeland security is make sure

we reach out to the muslim community. not with a fist, not with like you're out of here, but in the spirit of partnership. they don't want their young people to be radicalized and go around killing them. that's not what they want. we need to work with people of faith within the muslim community, with families, with nonprofit organizations and others to make sure that it's clear that we see them as an important part of our country. we're not interested in throwing them out of this country. they're americans. a lot of them make great contributions to this country. we want them to work with us and we want to be a partner with them to reduce the incidents of terrorism. by muslims and frankly any other faith that might be radicalized here. so that wasn't why i wanted to come to the floor, mr. president, but i was inspired by one of our colleagues who i greatly admire. now, what i really want to talk about, mr. president, is i want to talk a little bit about something when you mention this, people really light up, it really excites them. that is the federal records act. a lot of -- leading the news on

all the networks. it's actually topical and i think important, and maybe when i finish, the pages that are sitting here dutifully listening to my remarks will say well, that wasn't so bad. that was pretty interesting. so here we go. but, mr. president, i rise this evening to address the importance of the federal records act. and the recent attention that's been given to the federal government's record-keeping practices during investigations into former secretary of state hillary clinton's personal email server. yesterday as we all know f.b.i. director james comey announced that the f.b.i. completed its investigation into secretary clinton's use of personal email server. after an independent and professional review that lasted months, the f.b.i. recommended the justice department that based on the facts charges are not appropriate and -- quote -- no reasonable prosecutor -- unquote -- would pursue a case. in addition, the state department's inspector general

recently concluded its review of the record-keeping practices of several former secretaries of state, including those of secretary clinton. and while these investigations have been the subject of much discussion in the media and here in the senate, i just want to put into context the finding and their relation to federal recordkeeping. the truth is, for decades -- the truth is for decades in across democratic and republican streationz, the federal government has done an abysmal job when it comes to preserving electronic records. 60 years ago the goal quais to help pre-seb our nation's history and to ensure that americans have access to public records. as you know, a lot has changed in our country since that time due to the evolution of information technology. today billions of documents, billions of documents, shah shape the decisions that our government makes are never written down with pen and with par.