audittability one of my top business reform priorities." end of quote. during a meeting in my office, he provided me similar assurances. these solemn vows don't give me a whole lot of confidence. his predecessor spoke the same words, but all seem -- but all we coo is a trail of broken promises. to win this war on making the books auditable, it will take perseverance and guts. it will take top-notch, hands-on leadership skills and a chief financial officer who grasp the root cause problem and is committed to solving it. in watchdogging the audit for years, i've come to know the underlying problem all too well. i have been down in the trenches and seen it close with my own eyes. i was introduced to the problem when it just popped up right in the face.

it came in the form of an unusual notation in audit reports published by the inspector generally. they read -- quote -- "no audit trail found" -- end of quote. that prompted me to dig deeper so i asked, how do you perform financial audits with no money trail to follow? well, the answer, you don't except with great difficulty, risk and expense. one question led to another and eventually to my first indepth audit oversight report. it was published september 2010. it zeroed right in on the root cause problem. i call it the audit accounting mismatch. my observations were derived mainly from reviews of corps of engineers audits for fiscal years 2008 to 2010. these were some of the department's earliest attempts to comply with the chief

financial officer's act requiring all agencies of the government to have audittability of their books. the results of my study were mixed. this work provided a startling introduction to a problem. during extensive interviews, senior managers readily admitted that auditors had to do man wo work-arounds that are prone to errors. these could not connect the dots between contracts and payments and also to accounting records and make the necessary matchups. transactions were not properly posted to accounts and supporting documentation had gone missing. financial records were so bad in fact it took hundreds of highly paid certified public accountants doing man labor characterized as, quote,

unquote, audit trail reconstruction work or another quote from it, pick and shovel work to finish the job. some labor accounting procedures are costly. $50 million for the corps of engineers alone. and having gaping holes in audit evidence even after spent. such unorthodox procedures place outcomes on very shaky ground. now, true, these observations were made five years ago, but i keep running into the same old problems. for example, i'm seeing it again today in my ongoing inquiry into the department's task force for business and stability operations in afghanistan. i see it everywhere i go. the recently concluded marine corps audit is a perfect example of the same old problem.

the broken accounting system is still driving the audit freight train. the marine corps which is the smallest of the military services had been claiming for several years that it was audit ready. however, when the time came, the marine corps flumpged the test -- flumpged the test. -- flunked the test. oversight audits by the inspector general and government accountability office concluded that there was not sufficient, appropriate audit evidence to support a claim opinion. the transaction data was largely incomplete, unreliable, unverifiable and unsupportable. in the opinion of the experts, the financial call -- quote -- "was not even close." when i spoke about the results of the marine corps audit on the floor here last august 4, i underscored the need for reliable transaction data.

transactions are the life blood of financial statements and the lack of those transaction transn statements doomed the marine corps audit from the get go. i asked the secretary carter to pause and reflect on why the marine corps audit was unsuccessful. i urged him to explore the questions with chief financial officer mike mcchord. he might be surprised at what he hears. maybe mr. mcchord does not understand the problem. if he did, why would he continue throwing money at solutions that don't produce what is needed most and that is reliable transaction data. why doesn't he know that the same old garbage is still coming out of the other end of the sausage machine. how come the controller general

knows it? why do i see it plainly every day? it is written all over that marine corps audit that failed and a whole bunch of other audits in big bold print so why can't mr. mccord see it. he does not seem to have a handle on the core problem, the so-called feeder system. though ridiculed recently on federal news radio as being museum ready, they remained the heart and soul, the foundation of any accounting system. in most business transactions, transactions are permitted instantaneously from the cash register or other points of origin to finance and accounting. at the pentagon they take a round about route from their points of origin, transactions must first pass through a series of gates. literally thousands of feeders and other business systems. the trip through the

bureaucratic maze is neither smooth nor certain. somewhere along the way vital linkages are broken. and when ledgers and account balances are no longer hooked up to transactions, forget about auditing the books. it is nothing more than a pipe dream. so in a nutshell, this is the root cause of the problem that still has the very mighty pentagon steel buffalo and is lying in wait for the next go around. according to controller general dadero, mr. mccord is making the wrong choices, wasting billions of dollars on systems that don't work. c.f.o. mccord wants us to believe that staying the course offers the best chance for success. i disagree. more of the same won't cut it.

he needs to refocus on doable solutions. maybe it's time for some new ideas, a whole new approach. the audit strategy needs to be rebalanced. the roadblocks need to be bypassed. other agencies seem to be taken care of business by pooling accounting resources to save money. so why not draw on those skills and capabilities from other government agencies that meet the requirements of the law and use them to leverage a potential solution. now here's a for example. maybe where we know things have worked successfully, why not allow a service provider let's say at the department of defense as an example. maybe you could take any department to handle a slice of the defense department's bookkeeping pie like civilian pay. run a test and see if it works. if it works, build on it. for the next go around tear off a bigger chunk. farm it out and see what

happens. try alternative solutions. keep experimenting till the answer is found. after all these decades, nothing seems to be right for this agency compared to all the other agencies of the government that meet the requirement of the financial records law. c.f.o. mccord needs some direction. secretary carter needs to challenge him to do the impossible. as difficult as it may be in the pentagon bureaucracy, the secretary needs to encourage him to think outside the box. maybe controller general dadero and c.f.o. mccord could put their heads together. maybe if they would team up they could figure out how to simplify the whole system and make it play like a symphony orchestra. mr. mccord seems to be having trouble shaking mistaken notions and here's a new one. he thinks the whole department is poised for a major breakthrough, that the looming

congressionally mandated september 2017 deadline is within reach and the marine corps audit proves that that isn't possible. the military service, the army, navy and air force echo his assessment. they claim to be -- quote -- "on track to be ready for audit. -- audit" -- by the end of the deadline. the experts think the other services are in far worse shape than the marine corps. if true the probability of earning a department wide clean opinion is slim to none. and now suddenly to my amazement, mr. mccord appears to be backing away from his prediction about meeting the deadline. on june 15 he told the house armed services committee that the department is in his words many years away from a clean opinion. how can the department he -- be

ready and meet the deadlines if it's still years away from clean opinion. his messages are downright confusing and may be contradictory. if he know, d.o.d. is years away from a clean opinion, then he must also know that it is not audit ready or even close to it. mr. mccord needs to explain his apparent inconsistency. clearly the impending deadline remains an illusive goal. however, one thing i am certain, the next round is being touted as -- quote -- "the largest audit ever undertaken" -- end of quote. if mr. mccord fails to come up with some workable solution that gets a firm handle on transactions, there won't be enough auditors in the universe to tackle this job. this job is just too big for pick and shovel routine and the

cost could be astronomical. i want secretary carter to succeed. i'm counting on him to get the audit readiness initiative back on track and moving in the right direction. the taxpayers deserve nothing less. i yield. the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: mr. president, if a student is failing in school, many people will rally around that student and say what's missing here? is the student working hard enough? is the teacher connecting with the student? but we're concerned. and then when we take closer look at the situation, sometimes we find the student has a problem, a challenge, a learning disability. one of those is attention deficit disorder. the student can't focus, can't really put his mind on a specific issue and stick with it till the task is completed. the mind wanders.

the student loses focus and the net result is unfortunate naturally the -- unfortunately the lack of a positive experience. there are many critics of congress and the united states senate for our failure to address some of the major issues that are challenging us in america. it turns out that when it comes to one issue, the problem in the senate is attention deficit disorder. let me be specific. a few weeks ago we had the worst mass murder in the history of the united states of america. a crazed person went into the pulse nightclub in orlando, florida, killing 49 people and injuring dozens more. it was a shocking experience and we heard about it early on a sunday morning. the entire nation responded. the president spoke to the issue, even going down to orlando with the vice president to meet with some of the surviving families and some of those who survive this terrible mass shooting.

and then we came back to washington and the obvious question was what will the senate do in response to it. the senate had a plan and the plan from the republican leadership was to have a moment of silence. well, that's entirely appropriate. i'm glad we did and we should, but it's not sufficient. it's not nufs. so -- it's not enough. so a number of us came to the floor under the leadership of senator chris murphy of connecticut, senator blumenthal of connecticut and initiated a filibuster on the floor demanding that we at least consider legislation that would reduce the likelihood of more mass murders, reduce the likelihood of more violent crimes and gun deaths in america. the proposal that we suggested was straightforward. it said that we should close the loophole in the background check. it turns out if you go to a licensed gun dealer in america, you'll go through a background check through a computer. they will see if there's any evidence that you're a convicted

felon or have a certifiable history of mental instability. and if that's the case, you're disqualified. you can't buy a firearm. but those who are paying close attention know that there are alternatives to going to a licensed gun dealer. if you went instead to a gun show which happens in illinois and many other states on a regular basis, many of them have no background check for fire arms sales. that's the case in northern indiana, where the laws are very flexible and light when it comes to background checks. the bill that we supported from senator murphy, similar to an earlier bill by senators manchin and too maniy, would have closed the -- toomey, would have closed the so-called gun show loophole, so that you would have a background check before a firearm is sold, keeping a gun out of the hands of a person that is clearly mentally unstable. the second provision we had reflects the times we live in. we now have no-fly rules.

if you are suspected of being a terrorist or having terrorist connections, our government can stop you from boarding an airplane. the theory behind it is obvious. we want to keep the passengers on the airplane safe, and we'd rather run the risk of a suspected terrorist being deny add flight than run the risk of a suspected terrorist coming onto an airplane an endangering innocent lives. the proposal that senator feinstein brought to the floor said if you were on the no-fly list or the selectee list, you would be disqualified from buying a firearm. it seems to stand to reason, does it not, that if we're worried about a terrorist in our midst hurting innocent people, we certainly don't want that terrorist to buy -- legally buy an assault weapon in the united states of america. that just seems obvious. these assault weapons, semiautomatic and automatic, are

dangers to not just a few but to dozens of people. there was an episode, a snapchat that was taken by one of the victims in orlando. the last nine seconds of her life, that shooter at orlando nightclub fired after 17 rounds in nine secretaries. you can see the devastating impact of these weapons when they get in the wrong hands. the feinstein amendment attempted to close that loophole. over 90% of the american people think the things i've just described -- closing background check loopholes, taking look at the gun show loophole, taking guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists -- are reasonable steps affor -- towarn safety. we have to do more. in light of that you would have thought this proposal would have passed, that there wouldn't have been much cover, particularly after orlando. at the end of the filibuster, we

had the votes. both measures were defeated on the floor of the senate. then senator susan collins of maine, a republican, decided to try her best to come up with a bipartisan compromise. i salute her. she worked long and hard, and it wasn't easy, and it certainly wasn't popular in some quarters of the senate. she brought her measure to the floor, a know-fly-- a no-fly, no-buy measure. and thi there was an attempt to table it, to stop the amendment in it's tracks. senator collins got members to vote with her and it was not tabled. it sits as part of the an appropriations bill and has not been addressed again. while we've gone through this in the last several weeks, the house had a different approach. there was a sit-in that lasted over 24 hours to call attention to the need for debate and votes. speaker ryan has promised a vote

this week. it is unlikely anything will pass in the house of representatives. what's next? the american people ask us, is that it? are you finished with gun safety? you take up a measure in the house which has a dim likelihood of passing. that's all you're going to do? and then we leave. next week will be the last week before september. we'll be gone for seven weeks, the longest period of recess in 50 or 60 careers in the united states senate -- years in the united states senate, while we recess for the conventions and for the august period when we spend time with our families. my concern, of course, is one that's shared by many. it would be miraculous if we didn't have another mass shooting in that seven-week period of time. i hope we do not. i pray we do not. but history tells us that it's highly likely it will happen. and then we will return and have a moment of silence, and then we

will do nothing. you see, it's attention deficit disorder in the senate when it comes to issues involving gun safety. but for many americans all around this country, this is an issue which they think about regularly, and i can certainly tell you that in my home state of illinois, in the city of chicago, i'm honored to represent, it is an issue on the front page of every newspaper every day. mr. president, over the holiday weekend, the 4th of july holiday -- weekend, at least 66 people were shot in the city of chicago, at least five of them died. the victims of the gun violence include children. a 5-year-old girl and her 8-year-old cousin shot and wounded while playing with sparklers on the 4th of july. an 11-year-old boy hit in the arm. 15-year-old boy shot in the chest while coming out of a store. these shootings took place despite a surge in police presence and thousands of additional officers over the weekend. sadly, it is not rare to see a

weekend like this in chicago. marked by dozens of shootings. the weekend before last, at least 58 people were shot in chicago. seven of them fatally. memorial day weekend, 69 people shot in chicago, seven of them fatally. last woke i visited the 11th police district on the west side of chicago. the 11th is the hair song district, the -- the 11th is the harrison district, one of the most violent in the city. i met with the commander, chicago police deputy chief james jones, as well as other officers? the district. we had a long talk about the violence and drug sales taking place on the streets in that district. we talked about so many different challenges, the lack of economic opportunity in that area, gang activity. they showed me a map which looked like a map of europe with all of the different countries -- in this case, all of the

different gangs that control a few blocks here or a larger section there. we talked about the lack of trust and cooperation between citizens and law enforcement. we talked about the overwhelming number of children and young adults who have either been the victims of violent trauma or who have directly witnessed it. solving any of these challenges is difficult, but we need to do all we can to reduce the devastating level of gun violence and to save lives. we can't wait for the next mass murder. the most immediate problem in the harrison district and chicago o is is that it's far to ease sis for dangerous people to get their hands on guns. far too many of the shootings are preventable. they never would have happened in our laws did a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. the alcohol, tobacco, and firearms division of the federal government did a survey of the crime guns that were confiscated in the deadliest sections of chicago. 40% of those guns were purchased

at gun shows in northern indiana, where there's no background check. the thugs and gang leaders literally open the trunks of their car and fill them with firearms in northern chicago and take a half-hour trip back into the city and sell them in the alleys. that's the reality. no background check. we can close that loophole. will it end gun violence? of course not. will it make it more difficult for those who have no business to own gon -- own guns to get t? yes. why shouldn't we do it? we cannot allow it to continue. we need to stonds ed stand up to -- we need to stand up to the gun lobby and their aplace in congress who block common sense gun reforms supported by 09% of the american people. reforms like requiring universal background check and keeping guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists are no brainers. the only reason these reforms get tied up and dropped in congress is that the politicians in washington are afraid to

death of the gun lobby. the truth is that the gun lobby is not about the second amendment. the gun lobby is about selling guns. and if you reduce their volume of sales, you reduce their profits and they'll fight you. many of the colleagues that i join in this chamber are scared to death of what they might do to them in the next election. the gun lobby may care about selling guns, but i care more about saving lives. i have been fighting their agenda for many years in the senate. i am going to keep at t i am proud to join my colleagues in the house and senate in saying enough to this bloodshed in our streets. several weeks ago when i joined senators murphy and booker and blumenthal, we decided to move for votes on commonsense gun reform. our friends in the house of representatives had a similar effort. i'm also proud to support the democratic members of congress, robbin kelly, jane schakowsky, bill bossster, and steny hoyer who joined with local leaders and community leaders last thursday in federal plaza in

chicago to protest congress' failure to act on gun violence. the american medical association just a few weeks ago declared that gun violence is -- quote -- "a public health crisis." it is. each year more than 32,000 americans are killed by guns, 80,000 are injured. on the average, 297 americans are shot every day -- every day. and 91 die. the daily toll of gun who gun hs is devastating. our nation suffers from mass shootings on a daily basis. since 49 people were murdered in on the one hand -- in orlando, there have been at least 47 more mass shootings in chicago. -- pardon me, in america. these are shooting incidents where at least four people were hit by gunfire, a staggering total. no city has suffered more than

my city of chicago. so far this year, 2,026 people have been shot in that city. 329 have decide. -- have died -- no city in america has experienced the number of shootings and gunning deaths that we have in chicago. these shoot resignation the result of a flood of illegal guns brought into the city by gun traffickers and straw preamps. they take advantage of clear loopholes in our federal gun laws and put guns into the hands of dangerous people and crazy kids. it has to stop. there are so many victims of gun violence in chicago, it is overwhelming. let me just mention a few recent ones. father's day: a 3-year-old boy named did he von quinn sitting in a car seat next to his father in the woodlawn neighborhood with their car was riddled with bullets by a drive-by shooter.

the gunman was trying to target neanearby shooters. the boy's fathers tried to shield his son. but the bullet struck 3-year-old devon who almost died. this 3-year-old is currently alive but paralyzed, unable to breathe on his own. june 30, shonda foreman killed on her 47th birthday in the washington heights neighborhood in a the shoulding that also injured four other people. she was described as a great person, a responsible worker, had a 6-year-old daughter who will now grow up without a mother. she was sitting in her car when parntsly two rival gangs started shooting at one another. july 2, a father named dionis nealy, his 10-year-old daughter and 3-year-old daughter were shot and killed in their home in hazelcrest.

this apted to be a targeted attack. they described it is a pure evil. aaron nealy, the wife of dionis said "india was the light of this world. always smiling and hugging and laughing. she was a dancer, the life of the party. my husband, he was a stay-at-home dad. he was a good father. they did not deserve this." i'm going to keep these shooting victims and families in my thoughts and prayers. but thoughts and prayers and moments of silence are not enough. lawmakers have a responsibility to do everything in their power to protect innocent americans from being shot and killed in their homes, their characters and their neighborhoods. we coul can't allow this to con. i am going to join my allies to try to stop it with real gun reform. i am going to focus my attention on the problem that just won't go away. my colleagues think if we just wait long enough, we'll forget

this issue are just plain wrong. we neend the mern american people to stand with us. if they will help us speaking against commonsense re0 form, we can stop people from owning guns who have no business of having them. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i want to than thanke -- i want to thank the distinguished senior senator from illinois for what he said. as he knows, many vermonters -- like many vermonters, i consider myself a responsible gun oarchlt but i don't think it is responsible when people are allowed to come in and buy guns with no background check, get whatever they want, and then make a profit selling them to gangs.

how anybody, any lobby or any member of congress, can say they can support that? so i thank the senator from illinois for what he said. he's absolutely right. mr. presn another issue in just two weeks negotiators released what could only be called a proposal to require the labeling of genetically engineered foods. less than a week after it was released without any committee action, no testimony, no recorded feedback from either proponents or opponents, the senate majority leader filed cloture on a privileged vehicle

to fast track this bill. gone are the promises of regular order. gone are the pledges of an open amendment process. instead the senate will now consider whether to preempt carefully considered, long debated state laws to protect and enforce a consumer's right to know. make no mistake, vermont's first in the nation g.m.o. labeling laws are under attack here. -- it's this threat that has driven millions of dollars to the door of the united states and these millions of dollars of lobby seem to be paid off because suddenly with all the problems facing america -- we don't have our appropriations bills done. we don't have money for zika. we can't do anything about the

sale of high powered weapons to gangs that then use them to shoot innocent people. he can't face up to any of these things, but the lobbiests say change all the rules, ignore all the precedent, forget the pledges you've made, let's just zip through and get this bill -- and get this bill done because we want it. well, you know, there's probably -- people should wonder why the congress can be in such disfavor of the american people. what this bill does not consider is nine out of ten consumers support a mandatory label on their food products what this bill does not recognize is the 64 countries around the world mandate labeling.

it does not benefit from an open thorough debate but apparently has benefited by millions and millions of dollars of lobbying and campaign contributions. i was here in march when the senate voted to reject the dark act. what we have today a rebooted dark act. it makes modest improvements. it falls fall short of the disclosures that consumers demand, vermonts require. it does not have the disclosure that nine out of ten consumers say they want. we're listening to a handful of very well financed lobbyists and campaign contributors but we won't listen to nine out of ten of the american people. i've heard from hundreds of vermonters about the so-called mandatory labeling bill.

for the benefit of the senate, i would like to take this opportunity -- i'm going to share with the chamber some of the messages i received in the past few weeks. incidentally, this is a map of our state and it shows the -- the dots show where i've heard. many have shared their concerns about digital or electronic disclosure option. i could read thousands of these letters. let me just take a couple. john from fairley, vermont wrote, i'm incensed over the senate proposal to allow companies to put a barcode style labeling on packaging that could be read by using a smartphone to determine g.m.o. content. first, i don't even have a smartphone. very no plans to buy one. -- i have no plans to buy one since we have no cell reception

where i live. even if stores have wi-fi and are willing to -- and i'm willing to buy a smartphone, why should i have to ge the extra step of -- go the extra step of connecting to a company's website to determine if its product contains g.m.o.? well, john from fairley makes a lot of sense. for example, mr. president, suppose you have a peanut allergy. you could pick up most things labeled today and it will say whether it has peanuts in it or not. suppose you have a gluten allergy. you can go in a store and have whole aisles full of gluten free products and they would be labeled that way. why shouldn't you be able to look at a simple label. they print these labels all the time for their products. campbell soup is going to do it. why can't we just have labels. i'll tell what you katherine from brattleboro, vermont wrote.

i'm one of the many people who cannot afford a cell phone. the federal proposal for g.m.o. labels requires a cell phone -- that requires a cell phone would be useless to me and many othe others. please pass the law that doesn't require cell phone access information. i deserve to know what i'm consuming as much as people who have extra money can afford a cell. it just isn't fair to the rest of us to keep us in the dark. i pay my bills and live frugally and responsibly. i do not use my money for entertainment or extras but i do not deserve to be restricted from access to important information. this senator agrees with her. others like carl from putnam and barbara from hinesburg said i don't use a smartphone. i don't i would want to scan

everything i looked at in my supermarket in any case. there are hundreds of vermonters that sent me a letter that said the bill requires the labeling of packaged foods containing g.m.o.'s in one of three ways. electronic that consumers can scan, a usda developed symbol or label. the ability of the manufacturers to decide which of the three methods they prefer. guess which method big food will choose? i have no doubt they'll choose the electronic code that can only be read from a scanner. they know few will want to do this and even fewer will be able to. well, mr. president, it's clear the proposal before us today is driven more by the powerful special interests and by a commitment to honor consumers' right to know or by a legitimate effort to make information available to all americans.

i remain concerned that this legislation takes away the rights of vermont or actually any other state to legislate in a way that advances public health and food safety or informs consumers about potential environmental effects, avoids consumer confusion, protects religious traditions. i remain concerned the bill's definition of bioengineered foods has been written so narrowly that it would allow some of the most common foods to go unlabeled. my main concern this bill allows the use of electronic disclosure methods. in many rural parts of the country, rural parts of the distinguished presiding officer, the rural parts of the distinguished senator from oregon is on the floor, and including many parts of vermont,

we have significant technologically challenges that make it nearly impossible for consumers to access electronic or digital disclosure methods allowed in this bill. and i remain concerned the proposal doesn't truly support a consumer's right to know. consumers are an afterthought in the crafting of this deal. in we actually stayed true to the kind of things most of us say in our campaigns and our political advertising, we say we're there for you. we're there to protect you. we're there for you. well, not so. you, the consumer, are an afterthought in the crafting of this deal. the prime motivation let's large corporations get by with doing as little as possible. and the bill's lack of transparency is counterproductive.

also being concerned this proposal, even if you like the proposal, it has no enforcement mechanism. i have trouble believing that public pressure will be enough to force these multimillion dollar corporations to comply. nine out of ten consumers you think would be public pressure enough for the congress to respond but didn't do a single thing here. they're not going to make these multimillion dollar corporations comply. this proposal makes consumers the cops on the beat, policing companies to.information -- to provide information about the contents of their product. these corporations have shown they don't really care what the consumers think. with some notable exception. campbell's soup, a multibillion dollar corporation is

voluntarily labeling and i applaud them for doing t. so many others are not -- doing it. so many others are not. since the proposal was unveiled i've heard from many vermonters who care deeply about this issue. just last friday i joined several hundred vermonters as in my hometown of montpelier in vermont or on the state house lawn and we celebrated vermont's law taking effect on that day, july 1. and i heard their voices loud and clear on this issue. the proposed bill before us falls short. it doesn't offer consumers what they need and what vermont's legislature had in mind when they passed act 120, a simple, clearly written, on package label. all we want is a simple label. you look at it, you know what you have.

now, what vermont did unlike the united states senate which had no hearin hearings, no open dis, just had -- the republican leader brought the bill out here under a fast-track so we couldn't have any real debate on it. what vermont did, debated this issue for years. they held over 50 hearings on this subject. they had 130 witnesses. all sides of the issue were heard yet the u.s. senate has failed to hold a single hearing on labeling to debate these issues and hear expert testimony. our little state of vermont could have 50 hearings and 130 witnesses. our legislature represents 625,000 people. we had 50 hearings, heard 130 witnesses. the congress represents 325 million people.

didn't have time for a single hearing on labeling to debate these issues to hear expert testimony. not one single hearin hearing wy of those 325 million americans could be heard. you know, if you saw this on -- in a movie or something where they're poking satirical fun at the congress, you say, well, that's gone beyond. that would never happen. unfortunately it happened. the back room deal made with the food industry has left too many gaping holes and questions. it should have been addressed before this bill was fast-tracked through the senate. i hope other senators will join me in rejecting these efforts. the undermined ability of states like vermont, alaska, and virginia and others to choose to offer consumers and farmers

purely factual, noncontroversial commercial information that furthers the legitimate and substantial interests of the state. so i don't -- i really can't support the so-called compromi compromise. there have been no hearings on it. there's been no testimony on it. they suddenly handed it to us like a fate accompli. we're told take it or leave it and after all the big interests want us to take it. it's a last-minute attack on vermont's law. it's a last-minute attack on state's rights to set priorities of the state government level. instead of saying we'll cave to the lobbyists, we should be moving in the direction that offers consumers more information and more choices rather than hiding behind a toothless law that says industry -- sets industry interests ahead

of consumers. it sets wealthy, wealthy interests ahead of consumers. instead of an easy to read label which everyone could understand, this deal substitutes a complicated scavenger hunt which most people won't complete. it's a sham. it is a sham. it is not letting people know what they need to know. it is a sham. let's -- let's accept -- i mean, the senate will vote one way or the other. but let's not have anybody go home and say you listened to consumers or you protected consumers and said you voted for -- instead, you voted for a sham put up by a few well-heeled corporate lobbyists. i have sea said it before -- i've said it before, i'll say it

again: 625,000 vermonters deserve better. more importantly, 325 million americans deserve better. they should at the very least have had a chance to had hearings, have people talk about it. instead, written in the back rooms by lobbyists and corporate interests heavily financed, we get this. mr. president, i'm going to reserve the balance of the time, but i will first ask consent that my full statement be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and i reserve the balance of my time. and i suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to run equally -- and ask time to run equally on both sides. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

mr. cardin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator maryland. mr. cardin: i i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president, i come to the floor today as the ranking democrat of the senate foreign relations committee to discuss the importance of treaties to the united states and to express my strong support for the ratification of a number of treaties whose consistency with current u.s. law coupled with the tangible and material benefits they would deliver to u.s. citizens, businesses, and law enforcement authorities should make their ratification uncontroversial. treaties enhance and increase stability in an uncertain world. they offer a framework for u.s. global engagement in which we can work to promote american

values such as equal rights, freedom of navigation, and the promotion of global commerce. and yet, with the 1 i 14th congress drawing to a cloarks the senate has not yet ratified a single treaty, something i consider to be an extraordinary state of affairs for this body. and i hope we can change this shortly. the value and importance of treaties to the interests of the united states and to citizens be with seen in the seven treaties the senate foreign relations committee just recently reported out, and i want to thank senator corker, the members of the senate foreign relations committee for reporting these treaties to the floor of the united states senate for its consideration. these treaties include the convention on the law of applicable to certain rights in respect to securities held with an intermediary known as the hague securities convention, the international treaty on plant genetic resources for food in

agriculture, two extradition treaties with the dominican republic and chile, and mutual legal aid assistance treaties with jordan, algeria and kazakhstan. i'm sure these treaties are not getting the headlines this many of the other actions but they're important to u.s. interests. the hague securities convention with was negotiated to address what laws govern stocks, bonds, and other securities. that legal uncertainty has imposed friction costs on security transactions, increased risks for investors. the prevention provides voluntary choice of law rules for securities. it was drafted with close attention to the relevant passages of the united states law on secure transactions, article 8 and 9 of the uniform commercial code. the result modernizes these transactions, greatly enhances their predictability.

it is totally consistent with current u.s. law. u.s. ratification of the hague securities convention would be the deciding vote in bringing the convention into force, which will encourage other countries to sign on to this treaty that promotes global commerce and legal serpblt with -- certaintyn long stand u.s. commercial law. the benefit of this pattern to u.s. interest is obvious which is why the convention is unanimously supported by the relevant stakeholders in the united states, including the uniform law commission which drafted the uniform commercial code on which the convention is based,ed u.s. chamber of commerce, the commercial finance association, the securities industry, and financial markets association, the financial services forum, the emerging markets traders association, the depository trust and clearing corporations and numerous other security clearances and banking entities. the stakeholders who understand

the importance to the u.s. business interests all support the ratification of this treaty. the second treaty that the foreign relations committee just reported is the international treaty on plant genetic resources. this treaty has been in force for 12 years and already has 139 contracting partners. the united states ratification of the plant genetics treaty would benefit u.s. farmers as well as u.s. agriculture and research institutions. mr. president breeders, farmers and research -- planter breeders need access to raw materials to improve plants that are productive and nutritious. the treaty aims to address this need through the creation of a formal global network through banking and sharing needs. the treaty establishes a stable legal framework for international germ plasm exchanges for crops including wheat, rice, poe taeu poes,

oat -- potatoes, rye, and apaefpl. the sharing benefits research and commercial interests in the united states through the development of new crop varieties that are more nutritious, more resistant to pests and diseases, show improved yield and can better tolerate environmental stresses such as drought. the treaty is also unanimously supported by the relevant state shareholders. i will submit the full list for the record. but the list includes the american sea trade association, national farmers union, biotechnology industry organization, national association of wheat growers, national corn growers association, american soybean association, numerous universities and nearly 100 other farmer, agriculture, and research groups. mr. president, this agreement again is supported by all the shareholders that understand the importance to american farmers, american commercial interests and american consumers. i am deeply grateful to chairman

corker and my colleagues on the foreign relations committee who worked hard to advance these treaties to the senate floor. my only regret is that i hope we would have considered these two worthy, uncontroversial treaties earlier. both the hague security convention and the plant genetic treaty provide tangible benefits to the united states and its shareholders. neither requires changes to u.s. law. let me repeat that. neither of these these treaties will require change to u.s. law. the hague convention has been waiting ratification in this body since 2012. the plant genetics treaty was submitted to the foreign relations committee in 2008, received a hearing on november 10, 2009, and was reported by the committee in december 2010. almost six years later it's still not been considered by the full senate. we can do better. i am hopeful that the senate will soon act to ratify these two treaties.

i fear however that the long delay in their consideration speaks to a larger problem. i'm dismayed that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not see the value of treaties and the benefits that they accrue to u.s. citizens and businesses. mr. president, as the ranking member on the senate foreign relations committee, i call on my colleagues, the attention that we also have eight tax treaties pending on the floor of the senate. tax conventions for poland, hungary, chilly, protocol for spain and luxembourg and conventions on mutual administrative assistance and tax matters. with the exception of the japan treaty which was sent to the senate relatively recently, each of these treaties have been considered and reported multiple times by the senate foreign relations committee in recent years. they reflect the practices and procedures consistent with tax treaties and protocols passed by

the senate since 1973. since then, 68 tax treaties have been passed by this body by unanimous consent. yet, because of the opposition of 0 single member, the senate has not ratified these vital treaties. like the hague securities convention and plant genetics treaty, there are material benefits to u.s. ratification of these tax treaties. they establish a common framework for facilitating trade and investment and can reduce the taxes assessed on u.s. companies and individuals who have interest or work overseas. the seven countries with pending tax treaties invested approximately $700 billion in the united states with hundreds of thousands of u.s. jobs and businesses tied to these investments. ratification of these treaties would provide increased certainty and facilitate further investment in the united states and its people. the sole declare opponent of

these tax treaties raised privacy concerns concerning the collection of financial records. so let me be absolutely clear. these tax treaties are entirely consistent with the fourth amendment protections, ensuring that american citizens are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. as stated so eloquently by chairman corker, tax information exchanges with another country under any tax treaty are subject to the stringent controls are forbidden from so-called fishing expeditions and are explicitly prohibited from information exchanges requests for nontax purposes. that's protected in the treaty. the exchange of information standards in the pending treaty is in fact already being used in 56 tax treaties currently in force. the proposed threshold of these treaties would apply the same statutory standards to americans with bank accounts abroad as already applies to americans with bank accounts in the united

states. we're not imposing any additional burdens on these accounts that are outside the united states. it's identical to what we impose on americans here in the united states. there is no reason why people in foreign bank accounts should be able to hide their money from the i.r.s. in a way that the average hardworking american cannot. continued obstruction and delay of these eight tax treaties is an unacceptable affair that does harm both to united states businesses and individuals that invest and work overseas and to u.s. businesses and citizens whose livelihoods remain linked to the continued foreign investment in the united states. the senate should act as soon as possible to give each of these treaties the long-awaited up-or-down votes that they deserve. mr. president, there are other vital treaties pending before the senate that are critical to the american security and law enforcement interests. i hope the senate will move forward in an expeditious

fashion to ratify these treaties. in particular, i want to -l highlight five pending law enforcement treaties, two extradition treaties with the dominican republic and chile and three mutual assistance treaties with with jordan, algeria and kazakhstan. they replace outmoded lists of offenses with a modern dual criminality approach with which instead of a long list of extraditable offenses, offenders can be extradited if the offense is in the united states and the other country. it has procedural improvements to streamline and speed up the extradition process. mutual legal assistance treaties are agreements between countries for the purpose of gathering and exchanging information in an effort to cooperate on law enforcement issues. america can provide some assistance without these treaties, but ratification makes this process much clearer and

much more streamlined. ratification of these enforcement treaties will be of great benefit to the united states. to give but one example on how beneficial these treaties are to the united states, it has been estimated that for every one person extradited from the united states to the dominican republic, ten are extradited here to face charges for crimes they have committed against the laws of the united states. so these treaties are very much in the u.s. interest. of the 15 treaties i've discussed thus far, all should be entirely uncontroversial and capable of being passed without delaying. until -- indeed until very recently taxable law enforcement treaties were passed routinely by unanimous consent. but there are other treaties that the senate has considered in recent years where ratification would also britain skwreubl benefits to the -- would also bring tangible benefits to the united states and citizens. i want to highlight two. the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities in the law of the sea treaty.

the senate owes a great deal to former senator kerry and senator menendez for their work on the disabilities convention. through multiple hearings across 112th and 113th congress, it was established beyond a shadow of doubt that the treaties principles are firmly based on american values. from the u.s. constitution, the treaty borrows principles of equality and protection of minorities. from the declaration of independence it borrows the inalienable right to pursue happiness. and from the americans with disabilities act, the gold standard for disability rights, the treaty borrows the concept of reasonable accommodations. the united states ratification of the disability treaty would deliver material and palpable benefits to the 58 million americans who have one or more disabilities, including 5.5 million american veterans. ratification would impose no additional obligations on the

united states. no additional obligations on the united states. it will give the united states a leadership position on the committee on the rights of persons with disabilities from which we could effectively promote human rights and equal rights for those with disability, and then our expertise to other nations as they work to improve the treaty. friendly countries would be able to rely on proven u.s. standards in crafting disability and accommodation policies that will not only positively affect their citizens, but also u.s. students, tourists, service members and veterans who travel abroad. the disability treaty was overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly supported by veterans and disability groups. to the great dismay of so many, the senate fell five votes short of ratification of the disability treaty in december 2012. in july 2014, the senate foreign relations committee again advanced the disability treaty out of committee.

i was proud to vote in favor. it is my hope the u.s. will ratify this valuable treaty so that we can give the united states a say on how people with disabilities, including our own citizens, are treated around the world. mr. president, it's now been over two years since the committee has acted on this, and i would hope the senate would act on this in a responsible manner and the united states join with the other nations in support of the disability community. mr. president, the failure to pass the law of the sea treaty has been a failure of many congresses. the united states played a critical role in developing the treaty in the 1970's, and we have the most to gain from being a part of this treaty. we shaped the construct of the treaty to be very favorable to the united states, including giving the united states the only permanent seat on the international council that will oversee and make decisions about

the deep seabed mining. unfortunately the permanent seat remains vacant and decisions are being made about the seabed mining in international waters without u.s. participation. the estimated area of the territorial expansion over which the united states could claim sovereignty on the continental shelf expansion of the treaty is an area estimated to be about 291,000 square miles, or roughly one and a half times the size of the state of texas. through the senate's failure to ratify the law of the sea treat "y" visa long-standing -- treaty is a longing standing one, recent events about the wisdom are brought even further into question. for example, we've talked about this on the floor of the senate. the disappearance of the arctic sea ice coupled with increased access to minimal resources in the arctic seabed is influencing

territorial claims our arctic neighbors -- canada, russia, denmark, greenland, iceland and norway -- are making, and all these countries are making legal claims under the law of the sea treaty. the u.s. is the only arctic nation not staking any expanded claims in the arctic, nor are we challenging the actions of our neighbors who may be encroaching on waters to which we have a claim. the state department cannot be blamed for not making claims or challenging our neighbors. it is the united states senate that has failed to give the state department the ability to rightfully stay claims and challenge legality of our competitors' claims. purely out of an unfunded and illogical partisan opposition to the u.s. being a party to the law of the city. the situation in the arctic is just one reason to reconsider ratification of the law of the city. our failure to be part of the treaty framework means we lack the ability to fully work with our allies and partners in the

south china sea region to address the ongoing maritime security issues. a broad set of stakeholders ranging from the u.s. chamber of commerce to the environmental organizations, our nation's military to industry-specific trade groups representing commercial fishing, freight shipping and mineral extractions all support u.s. accession to the treaty. i remember the hearing in the u.s. senate foreign relations committee where we had our generals testifying before us that it's in the u.s. national security interest to be a member of the law of the sea and to ratify that treaty. in particular, our naval leaders have made it clear that united states participation in the law of the sea will help them maintain navigational rights more effectively and with less risk than the men and women that they command. i can only hope that the senate will soon ratify the law of the sea treaty which will secure u.s. interests and reaffirm the principles of freedom of operation and freedom of

navigation in international waters and airspace in accordance with established principles and practices of international law. mr. president, i must note that for many of the treaties whose benefit i have just described, there is disturbing pattern to a continued obstruction in delaying their consideration. because of how many hearings are held by the senate foreign relations committee to examine the treaties, regardless of how many benefits would acrew to the united states and no matter how many stakeholders weigh in in favor of ratification, even the most inoffensive treaties can languish for years without advancing and sometimes be scuttled by one lone objector whose reasoning has nothing to do with the facts about the treaty in question but has everything to do with partisan politics and ideology. continued delay on treaty ratification only hinders the interest of the united states and its citizens. so, mr. president, i welcome the recent movement of the hague security convention and the

treaty and the five law enforcement treaties by the senate foreign relations committee reported out last week, but i believe it is time for the senate to do more, much more. to ratify additional treaties that deliver tangible material benefits to the united states and its citizens. it's time to ratify these treaties. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorumcall: . quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cotton: a few weeks ago, i had the privilege of visiting the mid arkansas river valley abilities workshop, better known as marva, close to my hometown of darnell. for more than 40 years, marva has provided individuals with mental disabilities meaningful work and a supportive environment and given them access to a variety of social services. they produce and sell, for example, top quality repsychables, calendars and planners. my visit deeply moved me.

i saw firsthand how deeply important this organization is to so many arkansans and i met and heard from some truly amazing people. like ron who has been at marva for 17 years. ron said he had dropped out of three different colleges and was fired from ten jobs before he was diagnosed with mental illness. ron was actually told by one former employee, quote, you are dumb and have no future. ron moved back to arkansas and found his place at marva where he is currently thriving. in ron's words, marva has helped me to feel that i can be independent and encouraged and feel a sense of worth. i feel that my life has come from the gutter to glory. i can't imagine any other life. i don't want to get fired again. i also met mike, an arkansan who has been employed at marva for 38 years. 38 years. mike was diagnosed with cerebral palsy at the age of 2. he was lucky enough to have parents who took him to the best schools and the best physical

therapy, but there are still real limitations from his disability. for mike then marva has been a saving grace. his mom said it's a safe environment for him to grow as a person, providing purpose for his life and a network of friends for him to socialize and earn a little money while dofg it. marva offers ron, mike and 28 other arkansans a chance to be part of a team, a chance to do meaningful work, to make friends and have loving, understanding coaches and mentors who recognize their limitations. it offers them integration and a chance to live a full and meaningful life. i talk about marva today not because it's an incredible place with incredible people but because there is a movement ato the in congress that could harm or even eliminate places like marva. section 14-c of the fair labor standards act helps create employment opportunities for persons with disabilities that prevent them from finding jobs at market rates. in nearly all cases, these waivers are used for sheltered workshops like marva.

these organizations are nonprofits with a mission to help persons with disabilities, not companies getting rich off sub-minimum wage labor. now, i recognize that some in the disability rights community oppose 14-c. i met with some good people who devote their lives to serving the disabled, who have this point of view. there are bills in both the house and the senate to eliminate 14-c and in turn likely shut down organizations like marva. i'm sympathetic to their concerns, especially in rare, isolated cases of abuse. there's a choice between a workshop job and a suitable market job in, say, a retail store, for many disabled persons the market job would be the better option. but as the client workers and their families told me at marva, they don't have this choice. they can't choose between a sheltered workshop job and a market job. it's this employment or nothing. and who can argue that the client workers at marva would be better off not having this opportunity? would that be progress?

or would that be the unintentional but tragic return of failed and limiting policies of the past? i encourage all of my colleagues to visit a workshop like marva and talk to the full time staff and the client workers, talk to the family members of the client workers, see for yourself how important these organizations are to the lives of people with disabilities who have found a place that offers them meaningful work in their community. marva and similar organizations are true -- are a true blessing to their client workers, to their families, customers and all arkansans. i'm committed to protecting marva and organizations like it from any effort to close them down. and if you want the simplest reason why, i will close by reading a facebook post from mike's brother. "whether it's shredding by hand outdated phone books or making ballpoint pens for area businesses, these people want to work and are fiercely dedicated to their jobs with pride, and they want to work in the environments where they feel

sheltered, safe and where their needs are met. god bless marva and may all healthy sheltered workshops survive and keep giving life and a sense of purpose to people like mike." mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. heitkamp: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitkamp: i come to the floor to urge all of my colleagues to stop denying science and start understanding that g.m.o. ingredients are just as healthy for american consumers as any other ingredient. we all recognize that there are a fair number of consumers, some we heard from fairly loudly yesterday, who have concerns, and so as we address this issue and as we see the growing interest in knowing more about

ingredients in our food, the more we realize that we can't have 50 states and even the potential of some political subdivisions passing different labeling standards. we have to have a unified labeling standard. i've been disturbed over the last couple months as we've debated this issue from the standpoint of a public health issue and not a consumer issue, and so i think it's critically important that we set the record straight on genetically modified ingredients and we make sure everyone in our country understands the science of what we've been doing over really almost centuries of work in growing more resilient and better yield crops. and we wouldn't be able to do that in america today or really across the world without genetics, without actually looking at applying science to the work that we do in agriculture. and so as i've said o