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 on this

floor many times, north dakota prides itself in being the top producer of a wide variety of crops, and our diversity is something i am particularly proud of. this includes conventional bread organically modified or g.m.o. crops. we grow g.m.o. sugar beets, corn soybeans and canola. but we also grow non-g.m.o. products including many organics. i think that's what makes american agriculture so resistent and resilient and it makes american agriculture great. g.m.o.'s increase in stabilized productivity and high yields can make a big difference in the prices that we have today. non-g.m.o. options provide pay premiums to farmers, and there are a group of consumers willing to pay it. that is the diversity that we see in agriculture today. we should be encouraging this

innovation and doing what we can to encourage new products not just for our farmers benefits but for the benefit of agricultural biotechnology all across the world and the benefits that that biotechnology provides. after all, when you look at the story of american agriculture, it is one of innovation. some of our greatest accomplishments as americans have come from our agricultural research and our innovation, whether it's our land grant universities, extension services, co-op organizations, federal research investments, agricultural innovation has helped increase production, preserve resources and literally save lives. i want to remind everyone about a person that i think is a great american hero. this person is nobel peace price laureate norman borlog. he is thought of as the forefather of modern agricultural biotechnology. because of borelog's dedication

to innovation and making sure we can feed a growing world, he is known as the man who saved a billion lives. his wheat breeding work created a wheat which didn't bend and break as it grew enabling increasinged production and revolutionizing farming in america and across the world. as he saved countless lives, he sparked the green revolution. and that's why we know biotechnology isn't just good for farmers. though it is especially good during price turn-downs. it increases and stabilizes yields and fights against disease. agriculture biotechnology is also great for consumers not just in stabilizing or reducing prices, but it can literally save lives, like the golden rice can. just last week as we pride ourselves on this side of saying we need to make decisions based on science, over 100 nobel laureates wrote to dispute

claims involving golden rice and to talk about how important those innovations were to saving populations from blindness and from disease. and so if we really are concerned about science, let's start talking about science and let's start realizing that in no place has there ever been a study that said these ingredients, g.m.o. inputs are bad for consumers or in any way injure our livelihood or our health. so the bottom line is this technology is safe, and we have nothing to hide. if anyone has heard me talk about g.m.o.'s, i frequently say when people come in to argue with me, i give them to my grandchildren. if there is no higher endorsement for any woman i think to be willing to gradually feed your grandchildren g.m.o. foods and realize that i wish every grandchild throughout the world had access to quality products that we grow. but i also have said time and time again the more we fight

efforts to provide this transparency, the more we look like we have something to hide. that's why i proudly support the reports-stabenow compromise bilw compromise bill. i don't think g.m.o. labeling is something i'm particularly interested in, not something i'm going to look for on my label. but if you want to know, then you should have a right to know. so if consumers want to know that the ingredients of their food, let's tell them. let's tell the real story. compromise bill and what that means for consumer information literally across the country. today in america there is just one piece of legislation, one state that requires g.m.o. labeling on their package. that's the state of vermont. the other states that have enacted this will only implement their bill if four or more states actually adopt the same kind of provision. what it means is that for all of these other consumers who want to know what's in their

ingredients, they're going to have to wait generations or maybe may never have access to that kind of information. the g.m.o. label, if senate passes bills, what consumers can know about their food and whether their food actually contains genetically modified ingredients will be nationwide. and so instead of those very small group of consumers in vermont knowing, the entire country will have access to that information. and for people to suggest that that access can't be provided using modern technology is just a fallacy. we all know that the information that we receive about our ingredients, really about our life, how many times have we turned to ourselves and said i don't know the answer to that. google it. it's become almost, you know, kind of knee jerk for us to get that instant information. this is an opportunity not only with this label and with this kind of packaging to know about

genetically modified ingredients, there is the possibility if you want to know about antibiotics in your food, if you want to know whether it's glue ten-free, whether it contains some kind of peanut oil, all of that information can readily be provided to consumers. and if consumers don't have -- don't have the ability to scan when they're in the grocery store, in most places, especially major grocery store chains will provide that access. and so we're expanding, you know, in a way that really is unheard of, access to consumer information. and that's why i think all of the arguments that we've been hearing that we somehow are hiding something or that we're trying to keep this in the dark, what we're trying to say is if we're going to have a label, it should be a national label. and that label should provide the information to all the people of our country or access to that information for all the people of our country. and so i don't want to leave

this debate without reiterating once again that what this bill does is for the first time give national access to every consumer in this country a way to find out what are the ingredients in their food, particularly whether their food has been processed or manufactured with genetically modified ingredients. and so for people to suggest that we are not looking at a bill that provides transparency, that label is going to be mandatory. it's going to provide essential information, and it resolves that issue of transparency. but at the bottom line, what we need to do in this country is we need to do a better job educating consumers about what genetically modified ingredients are, about why they're safe, why every agency, including 100 noble laureates have told us we have nothing to fear from genetically modified intkpwraoepd kwrepbts.

and we -- ingredients and we need to learn the lesson of norman borelof that through application of good science we can in fact feed a very well hungry world. we ought not to hide from that. we ought to be proud of that. and so i know this debate is not yet over. i know that we will continue to have a debate certainly among consumer groups. and i am more than willing to engage in that debate and defend what our farmers do, which is provide options to all consumers whether as genetically modified organisms, whether it is in fact organic or non-g.m.o., or whether to provide that kind of input. but we have to educate on the science, why this, why these products are completely safe. and i think that's really where we have failed. so i urge everyone to support the stabenow-roberts compromise. i think that it achieves that label and achieves that access, and it does this.

it tells every consumer in the entire country that they will have access to this information instead of one small state of vermont. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: today i would like to recognize patrick holmes of hot springs, arkansas as this week's arkansan of the week for teaching students to love music and pushing them to succeed in everything they do. patrick just completed his fourth year as band director for the entire falcon lakes school director. as the sole instructor patrick teaches eupbl instrumental music for middle school and high school students and the marching and symphonic bands. the fountain lake middle school and high school have a combined student body of over 800 students and patrick is remarkable not just for teaching so many students, although i know that's a feat in and of itself. under his direction the fountain

lake music program has soared. over the last few years. number of students who earned a place in all region bands more than tkubldz and -- doubled and the students who won triumphs in the all-star band more than tripled. as a group the fountain lake band earned a first division ranking in concert assessment for all four years of patrick's tenure. in three of his four years the band also had the honor of being an arkansas sweepstakes band. the fountain lake band was one of two bands selected to participate in this year's national independence day festival on the 4th of july here in washington. i was able to see the fountain lake band while they were in town and congratulate them on this big achievement. and highway -- while i wasn't able to see the parade in person all reports indicate their performance was spectacular. i know i speak for all arkansans when i say they truly made the

state proud. i'm confident their success was due in no small part to patrick's instruction and leadership as well as the hard work of fountain lake students. i'm honored to recognize patrick as this week' arkansan of the week and commend him for his dedication to music education in the fountain lake school district. arkansas is lucky a passionate educator like patrick calls our state home. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, i have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i rise to speak about keeping independent agencies accountable to congress and to the american people. congress created independent agencies to be places where expertise in complex areas of the nation's policies informs policy making within limits set by congress. one such congressional creation

is the federal communications commission. congress conferred independence on the f.c.c. so it would be free from the normal control exercised by the president over the executive branch. but in recent years the f.c.c. has based less like an independent commission accountable to congress and more as a de facto arm of the executive branch wholly subservient to the president. at the same time the f.c.c. has become more partisan than ever before, an institution that has seized greater regulatory power while simultaneously shutting down bipartisan dialogue and compromise. the recent rule-making proceedings regarding title 2 common carrier authority, the massively skphrapbded e -- kpapbded e-rate and life long programs and the agency's power grab over privacy regulations have all been characterized by a

lack of bipartisan compromise or respect for the limits of the authority delegated by congress. much of the responsibility for this downward trajectory rests with the current chairman tom wheeler. for example, during chairman wheeler's confirmation process, i asked him if he would commit to coming to congress for more direction before attempting another iteration of net neutrality rules. mr. wheeler unequivocally said that he would do so. however, not only did mr. wheeler not come to congress for more direction, at the behest of president obama, he jammed through the most radical implementation of net neutrality rules ever, a power grab of stunning proportions. and he did so on a purely partisan vote. the number of 3-2 party line votes on commission meeting

items during mr. wheeler's tenure are a clear indication of an f.c.c. chairman who embraces partisanship over compromise. just the first year of his chairmanship, mr. wheeler forced through more items on party-line votes than the previous four chairs combined -- combined. chairman wheeler speaks often on market forces. hearing that, one might think he would exercise his agency's powers with humility and a light touch in order to promote the incredible in-- innovation of which our communication sector is capable. instead, wheeler seems more interested in waging partisan battles and accumulating more power, while at the same time avoiding accountability to congress and the american people. i've come to the floor today to talk about the most recent example of chairman wheeler utilizing questionable legal

authority while simultaneously trying to dodge public accountability. this example relates to the s.e.c.'s rules about disclosure of nonpublic information. the f.c.c.'s own rules prohibit its employees from disclosing nonpublic information to anyone outside the commission unless expressly authorized by the commission or its rules. nonpublic information includes details of upcoming rule makings or other actions the commissioners are still negotiating. these rules are intended to foster the commission's ability to have honest and fulsome negotiations among the commissioners and staff and to prevent any special interests from gaining a particular advantage over other stakeholders. earlier this year, however, commissioner michael o'reilly wrote a blog post expressing his concerns that chairman wheeler was instead using these rules to muzzle other commissioners.

commissioner o'reilly respected the commission's rules against disclosing details about upcoming rule makings, he pointed out that chairman wheeler was freely disclosing nonpublic information whenever he wanted. commissioner o'reilly was concerned that this allowed chairman wheeler to frame and influence the public's understanding of upcoming issues to his advantage by selectively disclosing information that no other commissioner is allowed to discuss publicly. indeed, the chairman's staff would later tell my staff that commissioner o'reilly would not be permitted to correct a factual error stated by chairman wheeler if doing so meant discussing nonpublic information. the chairman of the comeers committee, i sent a letter this march asking chairman wheeler to explain why he disclosed this nonpublic information to outside groups and how the commission authorizes the disclosures. and, madam president, i would ask unanimous consent to enter the exchange of letters between myself and mr. wheeler on this

issue into the record and that these letters appear in the record at the conclusion of my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: in his response, chairman wheeler maintained that as chairman, he can unilaterally authorize disclosures of nonpublic information whenever he wants, without any need for approval by the commission, despite the clear prohibition against doing so in the commission's own rules. the events surrounding the f.c.c.'s march 31 open meeting are a striking example of how this elective leaking of nonpublic information can be used to distort an ongoing debate and turn an emerging bipartisan consensus into a partisan power grab. the open meeting agenda included an order expanding lifeline which is a program that has spent billions of ratepayer dollars in an effort to improve access to communications technology for low-income americans. while the goal of this program is important, unfortunately it's

been replete with rampant fraud for years, which the u.s. government accountability office has recognized on more than one occasion. a compromise on lifeline between a democrat commissioner and the two republican commissioners was emerging. this compromise would have included a spending cap to prevent the program from wasting ratepayer dollars. it turns out, however, that chairman wheeler was not on board with this compromise. so on the morning of march 31, chairman wheeler delayed the open meeting by several hours. a highly unusual move. during the delay, "politico" published a story about the emerging bipartisan compromise, citing sources familiar with the negotiations. now, disclosure of any information about ongoing negotiations right before an open meeting is a direct violation of the f.c.c.'s sunshine rules which protect commissioners' deliberations.

what happened next is exactly what you might expect. the "politico" story spurred outside political pressure against the emerging bipartisan compromise which subsequently fell apart. ultimately the lifeline order moved forward on a 3-2 party-line vote without a cap or other bipartisan reforms right in line with chairman wheeler's preference. yet another, another 3-2 party-line vote forced by the chairman thwarting a commonsense and bipartisan compromise. and just last week, 12 states, including my home state of south dakota, sued the f.c.c. in federal appellate court here in washington, d.c., challenging the regulatory overreach of the f.c.c.'s lifeline order that came out of that very march 31 open meeting. in april, i sent another letter

asking chairman wheeler to explain the source of his claimed authority to disclose whatever nonpublic information he wants whenever he wants, is the assertion he made. i also asked a direct question. did you, chairman wheeler, authorize the disclosure of nonpublic information to "politico" on the morning of march 31 in advance of the open meeting? chairman wheeler responded that his position as chief executive of the commission empowers him to do anything that streamlines the f.c.c.'s work. according to his interpretation, if the chairman decides on his own that releasing nonpublic information will make the f.c.c. operate more efficiently, he could do it. even though the f.c.c.'s rules explicitly prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic information. i appreciate the role the chairman plays in the day-to-day management of the commission, but this appears to be a specious attempt to exempt the chairman from a very clear rule.

indeed, there is no record that the commission ever intended for its chairman to be exempt when the agency adopted the rule 20 years ago, and the rule very clearly gives the commission, not the chairman, the authority to disclose nonpublic information. in responding to my april letter, chairman wheeler also ignored the question of whether he personally authorized the leak to "politico" on the morning of the open meeting. my staff followed up with mr. wheeler's staff several times on this matter, and they have emphatically stated that chairman wheeler refuses to answer this question. well, everyone who cares about government accountability should pause to think about this. madam president, even though chairman wheeler claims he has the legal authority to leak whatever nonpublic information

he wants, whenever he wants, he nevertheless has refused to answer this simple question about whether he indeed authorized the leak on the morning of march 31. now, since mr. wheeler could have just said no if he did not actually authorize the leak of nonpublic information, that leaves only two possible conclusions. one, that chairman wheeler did authorize a leak but is not confident in his roundabout interpretation of the rules and fears admitting to violating them. or, second, chairman wheeler simply does not respect the legitimate role of congressional oversight and believes that he is unaccountable to the american people. i would also note, madam president, that while chairman wheeler refused to answer whether he authorized to disclose or sought to obfuscate

or cast blame by stating that it was instead republican commissioner gi pai who leaked nonpublic information in advance of the open meeting. this shell game is unworthy of a chairman of an independent commission. indeed, mr. wheeler's attempt to cast blame on another commissioner only adds emphasis to the overall point i'm making here, madam president, and that is that chairman wheeler seeks to use the rule prohibiting the disclosure of nonpublic information as both a shield and a sword. on the one hand, he claims that the rule prohibiting the disclosure of nonpublic information does not apply to him, but on the other hand he seeks to shut down criticism and debate from another commissioner by stating that the commissioner may have violated the rule prohibiting disclosure of nonpublic information. madam president, the f.c.c.'s nonpublic information rules were

intended to facilitate and protect internal commission deliberations. chairman wheeler instead is using them to stifle or manipulate the other commissioners. fortunately, the f.c.c. office of the inspector general is now investigating what happened on march 31. the i.g. is looking into who disclosed the nonpublic information about ongoing negotiations among the commissioners, including any role chairman wheeler had in the leak to "politico." madam president, i look forward to the i.g.'s findings and expect that we will learn the answers to the questions that i have posed to chairman wheeler, particularly the one question that he has refused to answer so far. taken alone, the lifeline leak may seem to be just a minor transgression that can be chalked up to business as usual in washington, d.c., but in the case of current f.c.c. leadership, it is just one

example out of many that demonstrate a disregard for the limits of -- the limits congress has placed on the agency's authority. the regulatory power grabs over title 2 common carrier authority and the f.c.c.'s recent privacy rule are further evidence that chairman wheeler shares the obama administration's propensity for legal overreach and the intentional circumvention of congress. in this environment, congressional oversight is more important than ever as a critical check on bureaucratic power. regardless of who sits at the helm of the commission, such oversight must be pursued, and i am committed to ensuring that it does. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, this week f.b.i. director james comey announced the results of his investigation into hillary clinton's emus during her time as secretary of state. what we discovered was this -- as secretary of state, hillary clinton repeatedly mishandled classified intelligence. here's what director comey had to say. although we did not find clear evidence that secretary clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive highly classified information. that is a quote from f.b.i. director comey. let me repeat that, madam president. the f.b.i. concludeed that president obama's secretary of

state, our nation's chief diplomat, the person who was fourth in line to the presidency displayed gross carelessness when handling information related to our national security. now, madam president, if hillary clinton can't be trusted to safeguard national security information as secretary of state, she cannot be trusted to protect national security information as the democratic nominee for president, and she certainly can't be trusted as our commander in chief. now, there are some who would like to take the f.b.i. director's statement this week as vindication for secretary clinton since the f.b.i. director ultimately did not recommend prosecution. madam president, the f.b.i. director's statement is no vindication. it is an indictment. the secretary betrayed the trust the american people had placed in her. she repeatedly lied to the

american people about the purpose of the server, what was on the server and the threat it posed to our national security. secretary clinton repeatedly claimed there was no classified information on her server, but the f.b.i. investigation found otherwise. according to director comey, secretary clinton sent or received at least 110 emails in 52 separate email chains containing classified information. 52 separate classified conversations. and of those 52 classified email conversations, eight contained top-credit information, the highest level of classification, and 36 contained secret information. now, madam president, secretary clinton knew that she was placing national security information at risk. as the f.b.i. director said when

discussing the top-secret emails transmitted over the secretary's unclassified email system, he said there is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in secretary clinton's position or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for top-secret communications. as a reasonable person the secretary unquestionable flew that the proper place for classified information was on a classified server, but she decided to use her personal server anyway. madam president, secretary clinton has tried to argue that using a private server in violation of state department rules did not jeopardize our national security. enpresident obama in what -- even president obama in what was a highly suspect public comment on an scro going f.b.i. --

ongoing f.b.i. investigation said her private server wasn't a national security threat, but according to the f.b.i. director, that certainly wasn't the case. director comey explicitly stated that it was entirely possible that, and i quote, "hostile actors gained access to secretary clinton's personal e-mail account." and he wasn't just referring to ordinary hackers. no, the director noted that secretary clinton and i quote again, "used her personal e-mail extensionively while outside the united states, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries" -- end quote. and that that fact was one that led the f.b.i. to the conclusion that her e-mail account might have been compromised. in other words, madam president, it is entirely possible that our nation's enemies gained access to secretary clinton's e-mails thanks to her decision to use

her personal account. despite secretary clinton's claim that the servers were protected, director comey went to great lengths to describe how the servers had substantially less protection than government servers, and even had less protection than common commercial servers like g-mail. madam president, yesterday senator gardner introduced legislation which i cosponsored that would remove the secretary -- secretary clinton and any of her staff members involved in mishandling of information and block secretary clinton from accessing classified information in her capacity as a presidential candidate. and i have to say unfortunately i think that's the right call. secretary clinton has demonstrated that she has no respect for the security of classified information and she like anybody else should face the consequences. as the f.b.i. director noted,

most people who had done what the secretary did would face consequences for their actions. other individuals found by the f.b.i. to have engaged in such reckless handling of classified information would at a very minimum have their security clearance revoked and would likely face termination. the rules shouldn't be different for secretary clinton because she held a powerful position. in fact, those in a position of such great trust should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. do we really want to set the precedent that wielding political power places an individual above the law? boy, i sure don't think we want to go there, madam president. but that's exactly what is happening as a result of this decision. i look forward to hearing what director comey has to say in his testimony today before the house oversight and government reform

committee. i hope we'll hear him discuss the reasoning behind the decision not to recommend prosecution when the secretary so clearly displayed in the director's own words extreme carelessness in handling classified information. i also hope that the f.b.i. will release the transcript of secretary clinton's f.b.i. interview and other documents requested by senator grassley, the chairman of the senate judiciary committee. a secretary of state mishandling classified information is a grave matter, and the american people deserve to know all the facts. madam president, they deserve to know the truth. i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: senator thune was just on the floor talking about

executive overreach. let me tell you, two weeks ago the supreme court of the united states issued a stinging rebuke and a stinging defeet to the -- defeat to the obama administration and its immigration am he nesty -- amnesty plan. it has been a string of stinging defeats for the president's approach of what i believe is executive overreach. the courts agree with me. for years president obama has been acting like he believes he has unlimited power, unlimited power to do whatever he wants to do regardless of what the law of the land says. now, the courts have finally said enough is enough. in this case president obama decided that for political purposes, he was going to stop enforcing some of the country's immigration laws. 26 states said that was outrageous and they filed a

lawsuit. it is the president's job to enforce the laws of the united states, and the law is very clear. the law is clear when it comes to immigration and the president's deciding to change it. basically says he is willing to ignore the law. because he didn't come to congress to get a change, he decided to do it with regulation alone. the courts have said that it is not the president's call and they have now blocked the president's amnesty plan. during an event in 2013, the president actually seemed to understand that he was just one part of america's government. he said the problem is that i'm the president of the united states. i'm not the emperor of the united states. he went on to say my job is to execute the laws that are passed.

he understood at that time that it was his job. at least he understood it in 2013. so what happened between then and now? if the president says as he did i'm not the emperor, why is it it seems that almost every action that he takes seems to show that he wants to act as if he is the emperor. time after time he has shown that he considers himself above the law. now, we know he doesn't like to deal with congress, not with republicans or with democrats. he likes to ignore congress. he doesn't like having to deal with the courts so he tries to pack them full of people who will rule the way that he tells them to rule. we've seen that one. harry reid changed the rules of the senate. seems like the president doesn't like to listen to the voters either. so he goes ahead and does what he wants to do no matter what the american people say that they want. this case last month is not the first time that the federal

court has said that president obama has acted above the law or even against the law. last june the supreme court struck down a regulation that was a big part of the obama administration's war on coal. the supreme court said that the washington bureaucrats who wrote this rule never even considered the overwhelming costs. this is the supreme court saying it. never even considered the overwhelming costs that they were imposing on hard-working american families. the president never even considered. the court said one would not say that it is even rational. the president's actions weren't even rational never mind appropriate to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health and environmental benefits. the supreme court told president obama that he is the president of the united states, not the

emperor of the united states. then look what happened last october. another court. the u.s. appeals court blocked the obama administration's new regulation that vastly expanded the definition of waters of the united states. the environmental protection agency wanted to give itself control over all the waters, all of them, not just the water but huge chunks of property in this country including farms and ranches and doing it by taking control of isolated pond, prairie potholes, irrigation ditches, all of these little areas. if the government can take control of all that, they control the land. what did the appeals court do? the appeals court stepped in and stopped the administration's actions because of what it called -- quote -- "the sheer breadth of the ripple effects caused by the rule." the appeals court told president obama that he's president of the united states; he is not the

emperor. it's the same thing that the supreme court told president obama back in february. the supreme court stopped another e.p.a. rule over carbon dioxide emissions over existing power plants, power plants that have been there and functioning. just like the so-called waters of the u.s. rule, the administration could not just go ahead and do whatever it wanted to do. the rule could do so much damage it said that the courts said they had to just stop the president in his tracks. the supreme court said that it was skeptical that any time a washington agency claims to suddenly find broad powers -- and that's what's been happening now. the washington agency is going back to old laws and finding new broad powers that have been -- a law that's been on the books and functioning for a long, long time. the supreme court said they are

very skeptical of an administration that does that. the court said -- quote -- "we expect congress to speak clearly, clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance." well, carbon never -- congress never did that with the carbon dioxide rule. the obama administration just made it up and the supreme court told the president that he is the president of the united states, not the emperor. in may the supreme court issued another decision to stop the obama administration from taking away people's rights, the rights to use their own land. this had to do with the way the u.s. army corps of engineers was taking control of private land. the obama administration went so far overboard that they said that people shouldn't even be allowed to challenge the obama administration's decisions in court. can you imagine that? the obama administration went so far overboard that they said

people shouldn't be allowed to challenge the obama administration's decisions in court. the president doesn't want congress to have any say in what he does and now he doesn't even want the courts to have a say in what he does. look, american families shouldn't have to fight washington just to use their own property. certainly shouldn't have to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. amazingly, madam president, this was a unanimous decision against the president by the supreme court. even the most liberal justices voted against the president on this issue to show how much executive overreach we're dealing with. the supreme court told the president once again he is the president of the united states, not the emperor of the united states. and it's been one case after another saying the exact same

thing. so i just want to give one final example of this string of stinging defeats for president obama. last month the u.s. district court in wyoming shut down president obama's latest attempt to stop american energy production. it had to do with regulations on hydraulic fracturing, on land controlled by washington and by indian tribes. the judge in this case said the administration had no authority, no authority whatsoever to issue the regulation in the first place. now, madam president, this was a judge appointed by president obama. the judge wrote that -- quote -- "congress has not directed the administration to enact regulations governing hydraulic fracturing." the judge went on to say congress has expressly removed to regulate the activity making its intent clear. the judge said congress made it clear. the president wanted to ignore

it. the court told president obama definitely and definitively that he is the president of the united states, not the emperor of the united states. six different court decisions in the past year. all of them against the president you even the judges that he has picked, handpicked for the supreme court are refusing to play aamong with all of his power grabs and illegal overreach. the american people are no longer buying the president's excuses and his promises. back in january, the white house chief of staff promised that the obama administration -- i was astonished. i saw this on television, saw a video of it, saw it again, listened to it again. the white house chief of staff promised that the obama administration was going to, in the final year, this eighth year of the obama administration, was going to have a year of -- quote -- "audacious executive

actions." audacious executive actions, the president's last year in office. madam president, it's time for the president and his staff to rethink their plans. they should recognize that they do not have the legal support or the popular support for all of the regulations and for all of their illegal actions. the president is not an imrerrer, although he may think that he is. it is time for him to recognize the fact. it is time for the president of the united states to do the job he was elected to do and to follow and to obey the law of the land. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. portman: madam president? the presiding officer: the

senator from ohio. mr. portman: madam president, i rise today to talk again about the -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. portman: i apologize sms i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i rise a again to talk about the heroin and opioid epidemic that has gripped our family. sadly, it is a problem that is getting worse, not better. and say that having been in ohio this week in dayton, ohio, where sadly we had 15 people overdose in the space ofious athe -- of just the july 4 weekend, one city in ohio. this is happening all over our country and it is an issue that we have to address. the federal government has an important role to play. there's much more we can do. this body recognizes that when back on march 10 we passed something called the comprehensive addiction and recovery act, cara. cara was on this floor for two and a half weeks, and there was some back and forth about the legislation, but by the end of

the process, and i think partly because members were going home and hearing from their constituents about it, 94 senators in this body voted "yes" on it. one voted "no." 94-1. those kinds of votes almost never happen around here, and it happened because people realize this is a crisis. we do need to address it, and that the bill that we came up with actually made sense because it was based on the best practices from around the country. and so i've come to the floor every single week we've been in session since march 10 to talk about this issue, to urge my house colleagues to act, which they did, and then over the past several weeks to urge that the house and the senate versions be brought together. that happened yesterday. so finally from march 10 until now, going back and forth, finally we have what's called a conference committee report, meaning that the house and senate versions have been

reconciled, there have been compromises made, changes made, and we have one bill to go back to both the house and senate and go to the president for his signature and most importantly to get to our communities to begin to provide more help on prevention and education, on recovery, on treatment, helping law enforcement, stopping the overprescribing of drugs. it is a comprehensive approach, to have the federal government be a better partner with state and local government, with nonprofits, to be able to address this issue that, unfortunately, millions of families in america are now facing. i want to thank the members of the conference committee. that would be on our side, on the senate side, senators grassley, alexander, hatch, sessions, leahy, murray, and wyden. i also want to thank all the house conferees. they did some good work, and i know each one of those members i just mentioned has a real passion for this issue, they care about this issue, and frankly i want to thank my coauthor, senator sheldon

whitehouse of rhode island, because he did a pretty good job talking to the conferees on his side of the aisle, as some of us, including me, talking to the conferees on our side of the aisle. senator whitehouse and i started this process over three years ago. we had five conferences here in washington, d.c. we brought in experts from all around the country. and so, yeah, we have a real interest in getting this done, and i comefnedz him and congratulate him -- i commend him and congratulate him for this result as well. i know that those who are in the advocate community -- in other words, people who work in this field every day, prevention or treatment, law enforcement folks, health care folks -- are also very happy that this conference report has come together. and, as sheldon whitehouse and i believe, we are very happy that this conference report kept to the substance of the senate bill and added, frankly, some good elements that came out of the house legislative process. they had 18 separate bills. we had one comprehensive bill. we had to bring them all

together. there are now more than 230 groups from all around the kurntion a lot of these are national groups, some are state groups, that have come out in support of this conference report, supporting the final cara product. yesterday i met with about two dozen of these groups, talked about the proficiency how we got to where we are, how we need to quickly get this enacted into law. they are desperate. if you are in the area of treatment and recovery, a professional, you want this help. you wanted it yesterday, and we need it now. these are people we sciewlted with, by the -- we consulted with, by the way, during those three years. they all came and participated in these five conferences. we also consulted with the obama administration. they testified at these conferences. they also testified at the hearing that we had at the judiciary committee. they were supportive of cara, in part because we took their input. we took everybody's good ideas, not republican ideas and democrat ideas but good ideas. we kept this not just bipartisan

but nonpartisan. it would be nice if we could keep it that way. i understand there is an election year and that some people may want to score a few political points, but i would hope that having gone through this process in a nonpartisan way, having gotten this great vote out of the senate, a strong vote in the house, now having this conference report done, which has the right mix of house and senate good substance, the policies to be able to make a difference in this fight, i would hope that we would not see anymore talk of of threatening to block this conference report at the last minute. now, some of these concerns that people have raised at the last minute were concerns that were never raised on the senate floor. for instance, some of the conferees didn't sign the conference report because they said they wanted to have the mandatory spending that's in the president's budget be part of the bill. that was never raised as an amendment on the senate floor. by the way, it was never raised as an amendment in the

appropriations process even. it just took place over the past several weeks. so this is new. it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have more spending. in fact, as some of you know, we had a vote here on the floor on more spending. it was abouts emergency spending. -- it was about emergency spending, not mandatory spending, which ha has to be offset. but emergency. i believe emergency spend something appropriate because i believe this is an emergency, and i voted for that emergency spending. but many of my colleagues did not. it did not pass. on the mandatory spending side, again, it's interesting because that was never brought up before. but i for one would be for more spending, but i certainly wouldn't want to block the new spending we have in cara, which is a substantial increase in spending, because i'm concerned about having more spending. every day we are losing about

129 americans. this is why there's a group out there called the cara families. they came to washington recently, 129 families representing that one family that every day loses somebody to the heroin-prescription addiction through overdoses. those families are waiting. some of them are here this week because they're interested in seeing what happens. more americans are dying from drug overdoses than car accidents. it's the number one cause of accidental death. in akron, ohio, two days ago, over one ten-hour span, one city in ohio, akron, ohio, ten-hour span, two days ago, 15 people overdosed on heroin. two more people overdosed later the same day after that ten hours. it included a woman and her two daughters all who were found unconscious. it included a 44-year-old man who died of the overdose. there have now been 55 people just in akron, ohio who have

died from heroin overdoses this year. this means they will set a tragic record this year in terms of overdosed deaths. the problem is getting worse, not better. on tuesday as i said, i was in dayton, ohio. i met with law enforcement and treatment service.ers. we announced a new program called the front door initiative. sheriff fill plumber was there. he told me over the weekend in one town, again dayton, ohio, 15 people died of overdoses. no one is immune from this. we've lost moms and dads, college students, grandmother's, celebrities, rich and poor, people of every background. it knows no zip code. it's in the inner city. it's in the suburbs. it's in rural areas. in the 170 -- in the 117 days that passed since the senate passed cara on march 10, approximately 14,000 americans

have died of overdoses from prescription drugs or heroin. 14,000 americans. it's time to act and again the good news is we had a vote yesterday of this conference committee between the house and the senate to finally pass this legislation, to the house and senate for a final vote and then getting it to the president and most importantly out to our communities. the 14,000, by the way, is not the whole story, as tragic as that it is. because of course there are millions of other casualties. fellow americans who may have lost a job or their entire career have broken relationships with their families and friends, and i hear this all the time back home in ohio. i heard it over the weekend when someone came up to me at a parade and said, you know, i'm one of those people who cares about this issue. thank you have fighting on it. we've had this issue in my family and it broke our family apart. people say the drugs become everything. and that means the job or the

family, relationships are put aside. others, of course, are driven to theft or fraud to pay for the habit because it is so expensi expensive. we're told in ohio and most of our counties it's the number one cause of crime is the heroin and prescription drug issue. 80% of the crime in one county i visited recently, the sheriff of that town and the prosecutors say it's related to this one issue. we don't have time for partisan games here. this is urgent. more urgent i think than any other issue we're dealing with. nine out of ten of those struggling with addiction are not getting the treatment that they need. i think if this were the case of any other disease, it would be viewed as a national scandal. it's wrong and it's unacceptable. addiction is a disease and one of the underlying tenets of this whole legislation is to acknowledge that. and with all the specific improvements we have in terms of grants going out for treatment and recovery and prevention education, helping police with

narcan and so orks the biggest sense -- so, the biggest thing in a sense is let's get this stig pa out of the way, let's deal with this as a disease and get people into treatment that they're going to need to get back on their feet. again, a few months ago i along with others worked with the senate appropriations committee to be sure that we did have additional funding to fully fund cara, of course, and to get more funding into the pipeline for treatment and recovery, education and prevention. so when people talk about the funding issue here, let me just be clear. we are increasing funding. the cara bill itself increases funding, of course, and the authorization. but here's what the appropriations committees have done. the 2015 number was $41 million. this is for the department of health and human services, discrer near spending for heroin and opioid -- discretionary spending for heroin and opioid abuse. it went up this year.

next year for 2017, if we can get cara passed this week or next week, this is what would apply. we're seeing a 93% increase from the 237% increase. that's more funding. i wasn't great at math in school, but that's more funding. in fact, it's a 539% increase from 2015. so for those who say we're not taking this seriously enough on the funding side, of course i would like to do more, but we have to acknowledge that a lot has been done. in terms of the overall spending, not just the h. hnchtsz s. spending, we have -- h.h.s. spending, we have other increases. 146 to 262 in the senate appropriations. i'm sorry, this is to add the house version of the appropriations for 2017. so for next year again in the senate, we have a big increase that will start on october 1 if

we're able to pass our appropriations bills. whether it's a c.r. or omnibus or whatever form it takes, this is what the increase would be at a minimum, i would hope because that's what's passed out of the senate appropriations committee. this is what this week the house reported passing. so as big as this increase is in the senate, again a 93% increase from this year's increase, in the house it looks like from what we've seen from reports from the house appropriations committees and conversations with them, they're talking about a 393% increase in one year. again this is the house appropriations committee. 1500% increase over again 2015. so for those who say there's not new spending being dedicated to this, of course there is. and that's good. with regard to the total discretionary spending, this is not just h.h.s. but all the different areas including the

department of justice and so on which has also seen an increase. this is the senate only. we don't have the house number yet. from the senate we've gone from 220 to 320 to 470, a 113% increase over last year's spending. so we are seeing more spending and that's good. by the way, this spending is connected to the cara legislation. this increase was increased with the provisions that were in the cara legislation to be sure that the two matched up. finally, this is the increase that we got in the conference committee for the amount that's authorized, not the actual spending but the amount that this senate, this house would authorize for increased spending for these new programs in cara. the senate passed the bill 94-1. had a $78 million per year increase. the conference report more than double that to $181 million. so here's what's interesting to

me. there are senators on this floor who voted for cara because it was the right thing to do. a nonpartisan exercise with a lot of bipartisan support, 94-1 vote. all that's changed since then, all that's changed since then is that we have a more than doubling of the authorized amount of spending in cara, and with regard to the appropriations process, because we didn't have this appropriations in place then, the senate committee had not acted. the subcommittee had not acted. in those 117 days since cara was passed, we now see a 46% increase overall in a discretionary spending and we see with regard to h.h.s. which is where most of the treatment money is, a 93% increase or the house version it looks to be

over 390% increase. so all that's changed since cara passed with a 94-1 vote were these big increases in spending. again i voted for emergency spending on the floor. i think it's an emergency. i would go further. for those who say they now can't support this good legislation because of spending, it makes no sense. there's no way to argue that. there must be some other reason. i hope it's not politics. again that's what people hate about washington. if partisan is going to slip into this at the end of the process here and keep people from getting the help they need and save lives, that would be a tragedy. these new spending programs will help but we also have to point out that cara is not just about spending. it's about authorizing better programs. there are lots of examples of that where we have done that in this body in other areas. i'm the author of the drug free

communities act. it authorized spending to create antidrug coalitions around the country. it's helped spawn the creation of 2,000 coalitions. i founded one in my hometown of cincinnati over twoan years ago -- over 20 years ago. another 2,000 have benefited from that. that legislation did not have an appropriation because it was an authorization as cara is but it set up new programs as cara does. to date that program, drug free communities act has spent $1.3 billion focused on prevention and education on drugs. we have more prevention education programs. we think they're an improvement in the cara legislation but that's an example of what an authorization bill does. back in 2013 the united states senate voted to reauthorize a bill called the violence against women act. i voted for it. every single democratic member of congress voted for it. it passed the senate on a bipartisan basis 78-22. the bill increased authorizati

authorizations to $655 million annually and made policy changes, but it did not -- and i repeat -- it did not include the spending in the bill. it was an authorization bill. spending bills come with the appropriations process. it didn't have mandatory spending. it didn't have immediate appropriations. it was an authorization bill. an incredibly important issue, violence against women, a priority and yet we didn't see some of these same concerns raised. nobody voted against the violence against women act because it didn't have appropriations attached to it. that wouldn't make sense as it wouldn't for any other authorization we pass around here. i note that wasn't an election year but we voted for it and we fought for the funding as part of the appropriations process and we were successful in doing that just as we will be successful in fighting for these appropriations as we did this year getting a big increase, 237% increase, and as we will for next year as we see already

thanks to our advocacy, those of us who are focused on this issue, we're getting the increases to cover these changes in cara. all the funding in the world of course isn't going to make a dent in this issue if it's not spent the right way. and that's why you have the authorization bills like cara. because we actually say not just for the new spending, but even for the existing spending let's spend it in a way that's evidence based, where we actually look at what's working and what's not working and treatment and recovery. the number of people who relapse is shockingly high. the success rate is not what any of us would like it to be. part of that is because some treatment and recovery programs work better than others. we want to be darn sure that the tax dollars we're putting against this are being responsibly spent because we are good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars and because this crisis needs to be addressed. so again this legislation is not just about more money, although it does authorize more money and

that's good. it's also about changing the way we spend the money so that it goes to evidence-based prevention, treatment, recovery programs that have been proven to work. that's why we can't let a debate about funding jeopardize the critical policy changes that cara would make and because cara would help ensure that these new resources would be spent on what we know works, that's what this three-year process was about. that's what the conferences were about. that's what all the expertise coming to washington to tell us what works back in the states was about, getting the best practices into this legislation. again the cara legislation improves prevention by sponsoring a national awareness campaign about the dangers of abusing prescription opioids. probably four out of five heroin addicts who overdose today started on prescription drugs. that information needs to get out there. we need to explain to people this connection if we're going to get at this issue. the legislation also targets

antidrug coalitions in areas where the epidemic is worse so where it's at its worse, there is more funding targeted to these antidrug coalitions to focus on prevention and education. that's key to keep people out of the funnel of addiction, the grip of addiction. we should all be for that. that's in this legislation. it would increase access to treatment by increasing the availability of naloxone which is a miracle drug that can actually reof course an overdose -- reverse an overdose while it's happening. it will train our first responders to use narcan and naloxone more effectively. these provisions will save lives, particularly when it's connected when saving a life is connected to getting somebody into treatment. the conference agreement would also improve recovery for those who have been treated for addiction. it will build recovery communities like the ones at colleges and universities, perhaps in your state, at ohio state university we have one we're very proud of. these communities, recovery communities will give the peer support that is necessary to follow through on addiction

treatment over the long term. we know that works. that's one of the keys here, not just the treatment but the longer-term recovery to keep people heading in the right direction. this legislation is comprehensive, so it deals with all of these issues. it's improved in the house by raising a cap on doctors being able to have a certain number of patients when they are prescribing suboxone or nuperorphine. i feel strongly about that. i think people in your state, people in ohio certainly ngd the urgency of this problem because everywhere i go, whether in the city or the suburbs or rural areas, people ask me about it and they ask me why we aren't doing more, why we're not acting on this. in southwest ohio, my hometown

of cincinnati, two weeks ago a 28-year-old was arrested after a young man in the cincinnati area who but the heroin from -- who bought heroin from him was found dead of an overdose, a 17-year-old teenager was found dead of an overdose. that's what's happening on our streets today. a few days ago a man from canton, ohio, was pulled over for speeding. he had 13 pound of heroin on him. by one measure, that's about $400,000 of heroin, enough for 20,000 injections. if not for that apprehension, we would have had a lot more distribution of heroin, overdoses, potential lives lost. in madison county, in central ohio, people arrested 16 people for heroin trafficking. that's what's happening. according to the sheriff's office, 90% of the crimes in that county are directly tied to opiate addiction. 90% of the crimes are people committing theft to pay for their habit. sheriff james sabin says that

out of all the problems in facing lost, heroin is the number-one issue we're dealing with. that's what's happening. ohioans know this is happening to their friends, neighbors, family members. they understand the urgency of this crisis. that's why all over the buckeye state, people are taking action. at the local level, at the state level, but they want the federal government to be a better partner in helping them to do what they know has to be done to fight this epidemic. as i said, on tuesday i was in dayton. there have been over 400 overdoses this year in dayton. but some measure, dayton, 0 he owe -- dayton, ohio, has been named the top city 230r heroin overdoses in america. these new overdoses are going to be helped by a new program called the front door initiative that will get treatment to those who have overdoses, get them skill training, help them be

better moms and dads. the notion is to get people noel treatment. this is a diversion program that's going to be customized and personalized to the particular person's problems because we have found agains through looking at what works and what doesn't, that that's an effective way to get people back on track. this innovation is happening in other places around ohio. sheriff tharpe in lucas county is doing some innovative stuff. in nigh view, it will be more effective, more compassionate and will save taxpayer dollars. i want to thank sheriff joe plumber in dayton, ohio, for his daily fight to get treatment to those who need it. helping people get their lives back on track. the conference report again that's just been voted out will help -- will help these law enforcement agencies like in dayton and in lucas county and in other places around ohio to be able to find alternatives to

incarceration. ohioans are taking action and they expect action to tak takeappropriate action, too. this is a crisis. they want the federal government to be a better partner. they've been patient. let me just say respectfully that in my view this is not like every other issue we address here. we address some very important issues. and we did yesterday on sanctuary cities or issues that relate to the spending bills. but this is about saving lives, and it is about allowing people to achieve their god-given purpose in life by not getting off track, by not being casualties of this addiction epidemic. i think this is urgent. and for those of you who might say, well, what hope is there? how can more money help? i will tell you, one, it is money that will be wisely spent. second, if it is well-spent, treatment can work and it does work. recovery can work and it does

work. there are so many stories i can tell you of this because i've been at over a dozen treatment centers around ohio, spoken to hundreds of recovering addicts, heard so many stories. will the me tell you one. it is about beth knee. beth knee is from prospect, ohio. when she was 18 years old, her dad died of cancer. to help her cope with her grief, she tried one of the painkillers he had been prescribed. so he had pain medication for his cancer. she was in grief. she thought, well, i'll try one of these painkillers. she became addicted to these painkillers. soon they were too expensive and not as accessible as something else, which was heroin. she became addicted to heroin. while she was addicted, she gave birth to a daughter who is dependent on opioids. by the way, there's been a 750% increase in these babies born

dependent on opioids in the last years. it is tragic. her boiled boyfriend got into a car accident while he was high on heroin and he died. bethany was eventually arrested and fortunately she was in an area of ohio where she not just got arrested, but they got her into treatment, she got help. she was the very first graduate of the marion, ohio, court family dependency treatment program. family dependency treatment program. it is a drug court. we had a round table discussion with bethany and others and met some other young women who were able to benefit from that. her daughter got treatment, too, by the way. they're both now healthy. not just healthy, but bethany is now a college graduate, is married, has two kids, is now the coordinator of the same program that got her back on track, as she would say, "saved

her." she's beating this because she got the right treatment for her, the right recovery program for her. mr. president, this is personal for me. it's personal for all of us. it should be. i know too many people who have gotten caught up in this group of addiction. i know too many families who have gone through what may be viewed by some as the ultimate grief, which is to have your child predecease you because that child got involved with prescription drugs, then heroin, then overdosed. two families that i've gotten to know lost a child because when their wisdom teeth were taken o. out, they were given pain medication and they got addicted to the pills and then heroin. teenagers who had to have their wisdom teeth taken out. these families are waiting, but

they need help. and we need to give it to them. i would urge my colleagues to set the politics aside. this is not a partisan issue. it hasn't been from the start. this is an issue of helping the people you represent. for all those people who voted for the legislation as it came through 94-1, rerk-- 94-1, reme, all that's changed is there's more money in the bill. in the days you voted for this n every two years. there's always going to be politics. this needs to come above politics. we need it get this done it a understand we need -- we need to get this done, and we need to get this done now. i yield back, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. the senate, mr. president, is on

the verge of approving a measure that is supposedly a compromise to provide for g.m.o. labeling. i want to express my thanks and respect for the principal authors of this legislation, my colleagues, senators roberts and stabenow. they worked hard to forge this compromise. but, unfortunately, it falls far short of what is necessary to really inform consumers, provide the essential facts that they need to make informed and educated choices about what they want to eat and their families eat, what they want to put on their dinner table. nothing is more fundamental or important than what we eat. it's essential to the energy and

ability to learn of our children. it's important to our productivity as adults, people of all ages care about what they eat and they care more than ever now because they know how important it is, and they also know about the unwanted features of food that could impair their health. not long ago, we rejected as a body a measure called the dark act, which stood for deny americans the right to know. and, unfortunately, this legislation will continue to leave consumers in the dark about what they are eating. this new compromise is as misguided and anticonsumer as that bill was, even though this may seem better. and it also betrays the desires

of 90% of the american people who want clear, comprehensive, truthful, accurate information -- labeling that they can understand and see readily when they shop in their supermarkets or grocery stores, labels that tell them whether there has been genetic engineering. and not only do 90% of the american people want it, but the people of connecticut have spoken. my state apartisan dod a law that requires -- adopted a law that requires it and that law will go into effect if four other disaits comprising 20 -- states comprising 20 million people who have the same legislation -- it is not dicta attorney. it is commonsense effective legislation adopted by the legislate tiewrks signed by the governor -- adopted by the legislature, signed by the

governor of my state. offends me most about this legislation is that it overrides the will of the people of connecticut. their determine nation is that they want clear, comprehensive labeling on g.m.o. products. when the connecticut legislature adopted its statute and now as we are considering ours, the debate has never been about whether g.m.o.s are safe or unsafe to consumer. i will leave to the scientists, readily delegate to them those judgments about the science of g.m.o.'s. nor is it a debate about whj we should have warning -- whether we should have warning labels. the labeling on these packages would not be in any way a

warning to consumers. it would be information only. the debate here and the objective of this measure is simply to provide information as dispassionately and clearly and objectively as possible. that's the goal, and that's what the legislation that i've cosponsored with my colleague, senator merkley, would achieve. and that's what we have sought to do through the amendments that we have offered to correct the deficiencies in this measure. among those deficiencies are the lack of an adequate definition of "bioengineering." right now that definition fails to include many of the forms of g.m.o.'s that could be adopted.

the deficiencies include the reliance on q.r. codes, which discriminate against people who don't have smartphones or live in areas that are not served by the internet or go to shopping stores that don't have that service. it is defective also in a number of its specific provisions -- and i'll just cite one more. in the provision that applies to additional disclosure options, the secretary of agriculture is directed by this legislation when there is insufficient access to bioengineering disclosure through electronic or digital disclosure methods. he shall provide -- and i'll quoting -- "shall provide additional and comparable options to access the

bioengineering disclosure." end quote. the secretary of agriculture will become responsible and accountable for the cost, the mechanical process, all of the aspects of providing this disclosure when, in fact, electronic or digital disclosure methods available to manufacturers or retailers are insuffer. inu.s. what will be the obstacles. there has been no hearing that will indicate those facts. and so what we have here is a failure of drafting and of process. and in this sweeping so-called compromise, the laws of

connecticut will be decimated. my state would be stripped of robust, grass roots g.m.o. labeling measures, including maine and vermont not only applying to food, but also to seeds, what's planted in the ground, and information about whether they have been bioengineered. these deficiencies are fundamental to this legislation. and i repeat, the issue here is not about warning and not about safety, although those topics are reasonable to debate. it is about simply the public's right to know. i have a basic faith in our markets in the united states, in our free enterprises that consumers will make smart judgments and wise choices if

they have the information that enables them to do it. but only if they have that information. and my question to the proponents of this bill is what do we have to fear by providing that kind of information that consumers need and want, and that 15,000 connecticut citizens have written to me asking to defend and constituents of mine, like tara cook whitman, have shown is desperately and dramatically needed. tara has said -- quote -- "anything short of on-package clear labeling shows total disregard for what it is like to

be a mom shopping in a store with her children. when i'm shopping, i need to get in and out as fast as i possibly can, and whether a product contains g.m.o.'s is only one of the many things i am looking for before making my purchasing decision. my son is allergenic to nuts, so i always look at packages to make sure the item nut free. tara cook whitman is talking. i like to know the calories, fat and sugar of an item before i purchase it. i look at how many ingredients a product has. all that information i can get in seconds. i pick up the item, i scan the box for the information i need and keep moving. i should be able to do the same for g.m.o.'s. i would never have the time to pull out my phone and scan the packages or go to the web site in order to get the simple

information i am looking for. assuming i would have the time or ability shows a total lack of understanding about shopping in the real world. when shopping for a family of five, my shopping cart could end up over 50 items. having to scan or look up items on web site is not feasible." end quote. i agree with tara. and i agree with anyone who has shopped and has the same views. in a crowded grocery store at the end of the day or with a child, especially a young child, navigating these aisles are challenging enough. the last thing a parent has is spare time to take out their phone and scan every product before placing it in their cart, even assuming the store has the internet service that would enable someone to do so, and even assuming that person has a

smartphone. this proposal is simply not practical or logical or fair to consumers. it is in fact anticonsumer. it is unacceptable as a consumer protection measure. let's give states the freedom to protect their own people as connecticut has done. that's the reason that i propose an amendment that would restore the right of states to adopt such legislation and make this legislation a floor rather than a ceiling that enables states to do more. mr. president, i want to thank my colleagues, senators leahy and sanders, as well as senator tester and others who have championed this cause. most importantly, senator merkley, who has helped to lead

this effort. i believe that the concerns we have expressed are urgent and immediate. and even at this late hour, i urge my colleagues to reject this measure as it has been drafted now and adopt these commonsense amendments that will improve it. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: mr. president, i've been coming to the floor every week for quite some time talking about an epidemic that we have to fight through and that's an epidemic of opiates drug abuse. this is prescription drug abuse. we've come to a crisis in our country. i think we realize that, both democrats and republicans. it doesn't pick side, whether

you're rich or poor, what race you may be. what religion you practice. it basically attacks everybody. in 2014, 18,893 people died to prescription opiate overdoses. that's an average of 51 people every day. we're talking about legal prescription drugs. these are made by pharmaceutical companies which we depend on to make products that are needed for quality of life. they are also approved by the food and drug administration and basically the food and drug administration is responsible for making sure the products we consume are safe, and then they are prescribed to us by the most trusted person next to our family member, which is a doctor. so when you think about it, how could something that's been approved by so many reputable people and institutions do so much harm and us not react to it? that's the hard thing i have to imagine. i can't say you know what, i don't think it was anybody's intent, but it is what it is. and we've got an epidemic, a

full-blown epidemic, over 200,000 people died since 1999. and we talk about zika, we talk about ebola, we were concerned about all of these horrific illnesses that can attack a human being, and we've got one right in front of us that's a silent killer we're not doing anything about. 16% of the people died in 2014. more so than died in 2013. we have to take action to stop the epidemic, and it can only happen right here in the halls of congress in the senate and our counterparts on the other side of this great capitol of ours. unfortunately, a major barrier that those suffering opioid addiction faces insufficient access to substance abuse treatment. i spoke to my cousin, michael alloy, who is a federal magistrate judge. michael and i were talking. he said, joe, let me tell you the sad scenario. he said i have to sentence many

people for the wrongs they have done and the crimes they committed. i never once had anyone stand and say judge, i'm sorry, you can't sentence them to a jail sentence because we have no more jails. he said i've never been turned down. we have always found a jail cell or bed to imprison somebody. we never lacked for that. he said so many times i tried to place a person in treatment that i know treatment or family wanted it. they wanted to change their life. but guess what i've been told: we have no place to put them. no place. if you're a parent, the only thing you can do as a parent, mr. president -- and i know nebraska is the same as west virginia -- isn't it awful that in america you have to hope your chance gets arrested and convicted to maybe get a chance in life? it is a sad scenario in this country of ours that we can't save this generation. it is an epidemic from this standpoint. i don't think there's a person i

know of in my state or anyone i ever met in my travels in america that doesn't know someone in their immediate family, extended family or close friend that's not been affected by drug abuse. it's an epidemic proportion. i say it's a silent killer because we keep our mouths shut. we're afraid if it's our child we don't want anybody to know. it would be embarrassing. if it's our mother or father, aunt or uncle, brother or sister we'll take care of that. we don't want anybody to know about it. guess what? we've got a full-blown epidemic killing your brothers and sisters, your aunts and uncles, your moms and dads and we say why don't we say something? this is what we're dealing with and this is something we intend to fight. i'm going to give you an example of how hard it is to get treatment. in 2014, in my state of west virginia, the beautiful state of west virginia, 42,000 west virginians, including 4,000 children, sought treatment for illegal abuse, illegal drug abuse but failed to receive it. the largest long-term facility

in west virginia with more than 100 beds is a recovery point of honeycut. it is run and one of the most successful places we have, it's run by all recovering addicts. every one of them was a recovering addict. they know exactly every excuse, every type of diversion that you will give them. they have had everything thrown at them. they know it all. but this group has been the best at having success ratios in putting people back in productive lives. they only have 100 beds and they have a four to six-months long waiting list. unbelievable. in 2014, about 15,000 west virginians received some form of drug or alcohol abuse treatment. that's 15,000 received it. guess what? there was another 60,000 that went untreated. 60,000, no treatments at all. based on my conversation with all police departments -- and i will say that all of us, 100 senators in this room, democrats

and republicans, can talk to their law enforcement, and i will assure you that they'll tell you eight out of ten, at least eight out of ten of the calls that they're called to for any type of disturbance, any type of -l criminal activity is caused by drugs. almost 80% are drug driven. and we say that we can't afford it, so we don't find any costs, can't find money to pay for treatment centers. let me tell you, mr. president, i have a bill which is called the lifeboat act. it's bipartisan. we hope it's bipartisan. we're asking for all the help we can get. here's really what it does: it's truly designated to fund treatment centers. what we're asking for is one penny -- one penny per milligram of every opiate product produced and distributed in america. one penny per milligram. that one penny will give us one and a half to $2 p billion a

year. can you believe that? $1.5 to $2 billion from one penny per milligram. you can imagine the amount, normality of what we're consuming -- enormity of what we're consuming. when you think of a country less than 5% of the world population that consumes, that consumes anywhere from 80% to 90% of all the opiate products produced in the world, how can we become so addictive, how are we so pain intolerant that we have to have these powerful addictive drugs? what happened to us? with all that being said, we have to, first of all, treat addiction as an illness. i'm as guilty as anybody that's been in politics or the political life or making policy for any period of time 20 years or more, i'm as guilty as they are thinking at first, boy, if you're fooling with drugs, we're pugts -- putting you in jail. we fill the jails up and they get out and they're no better

than than before we put them in. they haven't been relieved of their addiction, cured of their addiction. they haven't even been treated for their addiction. we thought by throwing them in prison or a jail cell will take care of it. we've come to our senses now and found out addiction is an illness. any other illness you might have, you're going to find treatment for. there's treatment to take care of you if you're ill, whatever it may be. sorry, but not for opiates. not for drug addiction, we can't. we just don't have the money to do it. so i've said we charge a fee for cigarettes. we know cigarettes is dangerous to you. it's not healthy for you. it will kill you. we know that. it's right on the packs when you buy any tobacco products. and you pay a tax or a fee. you can call it anything you want to call it. you pay. alcohol, you buy alcohol, you pay a fee, a tax or anything else that you want to put to that.

but by golly, if we talk about, oh, my goodness we need one penny per milligram to start providing treatment for people that are addicted, that we can put them back into productive life, oh my goodness, i'm not voting for any taxes. i can't vote for tax increase. i'm not voting for any of these things. can't you vote for a treatment for your child, for your grandchild, your neighbor? can't you save a society we're losing? can't you see eight out of ten crimes are committed by people who are drug induced? if if you're concerned about the economy, concerned about the well-being, welfare of this country, can't you do something responsible and not worry about going out and defending for a vote -- yeah, i will be happy to tell you i voted for a penny. do you want to call that a tax? i'm pretty austere about that. when i was governor, i always said i was very financially responsible, fiscally responsible, socially compassionate. this is just common sense. you've got to find a way to fund

it. so that's what we have asked for. so the lifeboat act is something that i am hoping that every one of my colleagues will take a good, hard look at it and don't look at it as a tax or a fee. look at it as a treatment plan that helps get americans straight again, help us get back into production. so we talked about the silent killer. this is a silent killer, because no one talks about it. well, guess what? since i have been coming to the floor, people have been sending me letters. they said please, we want you to read our letters. i want you to know about my son, my grandson, my child, my husband, my wife, my mother, my father. i'm going to read steffi sole's story. stephanie wanted me to read this for you. she says i applaud and thank you for your efforts helping those with addiction. my some tommy died of an accidental overdose of heroin, mixed with fete nhl on -- fentanyl on february 13, 2016,

at the age of 24. he developed a hernia during ninth grade, 14 years old. he developed a hernia and had surgery, after which the doctor presigned oxycontin, knowing it was addictive, knowing that it basically has been overprescribed and caused many overdoses. i now believe this is where this story of addiction began with my son tommy. he did not want nor choose to be addicted. he held a high g.p.a. throughout school and graduated from south harrison high school. he willingly helped his dad in the hay field from a young age every year. he loved his family. he wanted and needed to work and be productive. he wanted to go to college from a very young age, but the lure of the oil and gas industry, which was booming in west virginia at that time, basically won over, won him over for its high pay. however, those jobs disappeared very quickly with the glut of basically the natural gas

industry and all the entering that's come on in this country, so he began to spiral down. with no job prospects to speak of here but not wanting to leave west virginia and his family, he instead turned to more drugs to deal with and cope with the feeling of loss and being nonproductive. his dad and i found him. he died alone, which makes me even sadder to know. tommy was a good boy, a wonderful son, and he lit up our world with laughter and joy. he was loving, respectful, kindhearted and full of fun. i know in my heart tommy would have overcome this and gone on to do wonderful things if he had just had a chance. we are heartbroken, and we will be forever heartbroken. saturday, june 11, would have been tommy's 25th birthday, this past june 11. she says if this letter helps you in any way, please feel free to use it. it would bring a bit of peace to us to know that his story will help others. this is the hidden secret. this is basically the hidden killer that we're talking about.

but when you have stephanie and the parents and grandparents willing to speak up now and say put a face with it, put a boy or young girl coming out of a neighborhood who we had high hopes for and they were snuffed out, this is what they want us to share. this is what they're asking us to take up and do and provide the treatment that can help save the lives of their children and the lives of a generation of americans. mr. president, i thank you and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: mr. president, we are on the floor here this afternoon with the issue before us of g.m.o. foods, genetically modified organisms. i don't want to talk about g.m.o. foods in that space. i want to talk about a more specific genetically engineered species. i would like to speak this

afternoon about genetically engineered salmon. i think it's important to acknowledge that this is -- this is separate from this larger g.m.o. debate that we have been engaged on the floor here. genetically engineered animals are not crops. they are not something that grows in a field and stays stationary. a genetically engineered salmon is something that swims. it moves around. it is something entirely new. it is a new species, a new species designed specifically for human consumption. this is the first time that the f.d.a. has ever signed off on a

genetically engineered new species designed for human consumption. first time. i happen to think that the f.d.a. signoff was wrong, and i'm going to continue to object to that because this new species that potentially will be introduced into our markets, into our homes and quite possibly into our ecosystems, contrary to what any environmental assessment may claim, this is new, this is unprecedented. when we talk about again a genetically engineered salmon, we have dubbed it a franken fish in alaska because it is splicing d.n.a. from one animal, an ocean

pout, with another fish, a farmed fish and inserting that into a chinook salmon. so we're doing a little bit of a science experiment here that concerns many of us. growing up in the state of alaska, i -- i know fish. i know the significance of a strong, healthy -- of strong, healthy fisheries. it's our number-one employer throughout the state of alaska. not only do we look to the strength of our fisheries for strong economies and good jobs, it's critical, it's integral to those who live a subsistence lifestyle. it is so much a part of who we are as alaskans. sometimes you look and say alaskans identify themselves with their salmon. right now, people in alaska are not necessarily talking about what's going on here in washington, d.c. they're wondering when the next run of kings is coming in.

they're wondering what's happening up on the yukon with the runs up there. when's the red run going to come in in full tilt? when's the dip netting going to be starting? it's all about our fish. well, we have been assured that if these genetically engineered salmon should be allowed out onto the market, that this production moves forward, that you don't need to worry, alaska, about any escapement because we're going to make sure that these guys don't get loose. nice promise, nice promise, but we -- we know in the state that fish can get out of the pens. they escape from hatcheries. they can be accidentally released from where fish are grown. and so we take very seriously the issues that present themselves with again the

introduction of a new species that has the potential to wreak havoc, to do harm to our wild natural stocks. and again, whether it's escapement or the promise that don't worry, these fish are going to be sterile, you're not ever going to have to worry about them interbreeding, breeding with your wild stocks, you're going to be safe, alaska. you're going to be okay, alaska. well, the folks that i represent back home look at this and say no, we don't believe that we have the assurances, we don't believe that we have the certainty, we don't believe that we have the standards that are necessary to provide for the protection of our wild stocks. so i have made clear throughout the larger debate on g.m.o.'s that i have opposed this bill because contained within this broader debate of g.m.o.'s, we

do nothing to make it clear that if, if genetically engineered salmon is to go forward as the f.d.a. has said that it will, that there needs to be clear and unequivocal labeling of this g.e. salmon. so contained within this broader bill, we do not have the clear requirement for labeling of g.e. sal montana while also preempting alaska's labeling law. so what we have been told is don't worry. if these genetically engineered salmon are out on the market, those who are marketing these salmon can voluntarily label them. well, let me ask you, who do you think is really going to voluntarily place a label on something that says this is not the real thing, this is not your wild alaska salmon. this is a genetically engineered

species here? you know, the reality is we will not see the labeling that i as an alaskan, who is putting fish on the dinner table or my family, that i would require, that i would want. so we have been trying to work through this with the -- with the chairman of the committee and the ranking member trying to provide for what we believe are very sensible, reasonable fixes, and yet we are at that place where those accommodations have simply not been made. but let me assure you, mr. president, alaskans are very, very unified on this issue. we will not accept that g.e. salmon or this franken fish be sold to us without clear labeling. and again, i for one am not

going to feed my boys this fish, and i use that term lightly because i'm looking at it, this is not even like a fish. this is not even like a fish. you're taking -- you're taking d.n.a. from an ocean pout. what's an ocean pout? it's an eel. i usually am up here with a big picture of an ugly eel. i figure you might be tired of looking at that picture by now, but apparently it's not getting through to people. this is -- this is not viewed -- when we talk about frankenfish, this is no joke to alaskans. it poses a serious threat to the livelihoods of our fishermen, and that's not something that i'm willing to take a risk, that i'm willing to take a gamble on. our fisheries in the state of alaska are world renowned for their high quality and their sustainability. the alaska seafood industry supports more than 63,000 direct jobs, contributes over $4.6 billion to our state's economy. nearly one in seven alaskans are

employed in our commercial seafood industry. it's a major part of the seafood economy. commercial fishermen around the state harvested more than 265 million salmon this past year, including the wild chinook salmon, sockeye, coho, chunks, pinks. it's all coming on now. i was up in alaska on friday. everyone's just waiting, waiting for the sockeye to hit. it is an incredibly, incredibly important part of our state's economy. but it's more than just the economic benefit, the dollars that come to our state, the jobs that's created. it's -- it's the good, healthy stuff. wild alaska salmon has tremendous health benefits. it's a lean protein source of omega 3's, b-6, b-12, niacin. it's just good stuff, it's naturally good stuff. and it's so good that there are

over 1.5 million people, 1.5 million people who wrote in to the f.d.a. who said we oppose this genetically engineered salmon. and they weighed in. what did f.d.a. do? basically went the other way, weren't listening. but many of the grocery stores, many of the grocery stores that we frequent have said, you know what, if you are going to allow this out here, we are not going to sell this in our stores. they want to know that there's going to be a label on it. they want to know that they can tell their customers this is wild alaska sustainable, or the real thing, and this is not, and a voluntary label again doesn't cut it. so you have safeway, kroger, whole foods, trader joe's, target, they have all announced that they're not going to sell it. and despite this immense opposition, in november of last year, the f.d.a. approved

aquaboint technology's application for its g.e. aqua advantage salmon. so, again, i say salmon or fish even in quotation marks because what we're doing is we're taking a transgenic atlantic salmon egg which has genes again from this ocean pout, this eel, combine it with the genes of a chinook. the egg is meant to produce a fish that grows to full size in twice the time as a normal atlantic salmon. so, again, you just kind of ramping this thing up on steroids, if you will, to cause it to grow twice as fast. these eggs under the f.d.a. application, will be produced in canada. so it's not like you're getting any american jobs there. and then the smolt, although i don't want to use the term smolt beus