i think what is perhaps unknown is what the -- the relevance, really the incidents of postpartum depression here in the united states and the fact that here in this country one in seven mothers nationwide will suffer from postpartum depression. in my state of alaska the numbers are even more troubling. we are twice the national average in one in three. one in three new mothers in the state of alaska who will deal with the difficulty of postpartum depression. about a month ago -- it's been a little bit more than that by nol anchorage reporter who was building out a series to look at the impacts of postpartum

depression. we'll just call it p.p.d. she put together a four-part series that focused on seven very strong, very passionate women from the anchorage community who came forward to share their stories. it was an interesting interview because the reporter wanted to ask me about some legislation that i have been involved with here in the senate, but it gave me an opportunity to reflect back on the time when i was a mom, a new mother with beautiful, handsome little boy, and the responsibilities of being a mom literally overnight. coming from a family of six, you figure you know how to deal with children. but until you walk out of that

hospital and you have that responsibility, it is not something that you come prepared for or with a guidebook to. it's kind of trial by error every day. and i recall the reality of the responsibilities that i faced as a new mother. i recall some of the angst and concern that i had about whether or not i was doing things right. and here i was supposed to be happy and joyous and excited about this beautiful bundle of baby boy that i had, and instead i was tired and fatigued and stressed. i was stressed. was i doing everything right? i wasn't sure. and, while i did not deal or

suffer the anxiety that comes with postpartum depression, as a new mother filled with just my own level of concern, i did feel that the symptoms that i think many, many women feel and share, and yet you don't want to talk about it because you're supposed to be excited and happy and not in a state that is described as anything less than joyful. and so i think, unfortunately, many women don't share their concerns, don't express their feelings. instead deal with it and sometimes deal with it in ways that can be tragic. so i have been inspired, i have

been very encouraged by the stories that i have shared with and heard from women and other advocates that are fighting to raise awareness of the issue of p.p.d. and so today i wanted to share the story of one woman who lost her daughter to postpartum depression. and i met this woman shortly after i had filmed this interview. she works in anchorage as well as wasilla as a child and adolescent psychiatrist. she has been absolutely passionate about providing care and support to children and adolescents in an effort to reduce and prevent suicide. so this is her life's work. and she began to advocate for p.p.d. after her own daughter brittany suffered and ultimately lost her life to p.p.d.

brittany was 25 years old. brittany was a beautiful, passionate, lively, bright young woman. she was born close to here in fairfax, virginia, in 1989. she excelled in school. sraoe graduated with an international baccalaureate degree at age 16. she loved animals and dreamed of being a veterinarian one day. she continued to excel academically while taking courses through the university of pittsburgh and later online through north carolina state university. but one of her, her big goals was to race in the iditarod, one of my favorite sporting events, certainly my favorite alaskan event. she owned, she raced and she showed several siberian huskies, but she worked as a dog handler

for karen ramstead. she was part of karen's preparation for the iditarod, so she was into her dogs. she was into really her life. but as much as she loved the iditarod, as much as she loved what she was doing, she considered mother hood to be her greatest achievement. but sadly, very sadly, she began to struggle with p.p.d. after a complicated delivery that resulted in her newborn son spending a week in the neonatal intensive care unit. and she dealt with some very powerful emotions, some very violent emotions. she sought treatment from her physicians for her p.p.d., but she was in a situation where her cries were unanswered because she was dealing with physicians who were unable or perhaps

ill-equipped to help her. it was about the time of her son's first birthday when brittany lost her battle with p.p.d. and as sad and as tragic as that was for all in brittany's family, it was another woman outside the family, another woman musher who really moved forward in working for and advocating for brittany. it was dee dee johnro who raced the iditarod in brittany's honor. she took forward that cause, that crusade. but, again, brittany was a bright, motivated, loving young woman who was struck down early in life because she didn't have access to the treatment that she needed. and unfortunately her story is one of many.

p.p.d. impacts women in every race, every income and all background. and again, all too often women who have p.p.d. feel helpless, they feel overwhelmed. they're certainly confused. they feel like i haven't done something right. i haven't properly bonded with my baby. or i'm not ill -- i'm ill prepared, i'm ill equipped for parenthood. i skwrufrt can't understand or -- just can't understand or figure out what may have gone wrong. again, the assumption out there is you have this beautiful baby, you should be joyful. why aren't you? and so because that expectation is different than what you're feeling, there is a hesitation to bring it up. there is a hesitation to speak about it. but again, i will repeat our statistics. across the country one in seven mothers will suffer from p.p.d. and in alaska, one in three

women, twice the national average. now there are some nonprofit organizations that are seeking to raise awareness and to help women connect with treatment for p.p.d., but often they are located in the populous areas of the state. think about my state where most of the communities are not connected by roads. what about the women who are unable to receive proper screening diagnosis or treatment early on? so raising awareness of this issue is something that we are trying to do, and that's why i've been supporting legislation like the bringing postpartum depression out of the shadows act. i want to thank the occupant of the chair here, senator cassidy, along with senators alexander, murray, and murphy, for including p.p.d. in the mental health reform act. i cosponsored both pieces of legislation because i think what

we need to do is to do more to ensure that we are ensuring proper screening and treatment for p.p.d. i want to support the efforts to improve culturally competent programs that will help educate physicians, especially our primary care providers, on the proper detection and the treatment. and we recognize that this will not only benefit the women who are suffering, but also improve the health and the well-being of their children and really their families as a whole. with so many moms across my state, across the nation who are facing postpartum depression, i think it's important, it's worthwhile that we do what we can to raise the issue, raise the awareness, put it at the forefront, openly discuss it, educate and help improve our understanding of this illness. so, mr. president, i thank you for the opportunity to raise this issue before the body

today. and with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i return to the floor now for the 47th week for the 47th edition of the waste of the week. documentedexamples of the waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayers' dollars, hard-earned taxpayers dollars that come to the federal government and that the public has every right to expect us to spend wisely, effectively and

efficiently. nonpartisan agencies like the government accountability office, inspector generals whose job is to examine how various agencies spend money and report areas where they think that expenditure doesn't live up to the promises that have been made in terms of what it would accomplish or questioning whether it ever should have been provided in the first place. some of the examples that i provided over these 47 weeks have been simply labeled as ridiculous. i raise those because it grabs the attention of the american public saying how in the world, how possibly could you do something -- could the federal government allow something like that to happen with my tax dollars? you know, i get up every monday morning and go to work, and i work hard for those dollars. and i've got a mortgage to pay and i've got bills to pay. i've got gasoline that i have to

put in my car to get to work and back. and then i hear something on the floor of the united states senate by the senator from indiana that is a documented expenditure that falls clearly within the category of simply a ridiculous decision, waste, fraud, or abuse. and so whether it has been federal grants to perform massages on rabbits, yes, massages on rabbits to see whether or not a massage makes them feel better after a strenuous workout, i think any one of us could basically say you don't need tow spend several hundred thousand dollars to prove that is something that works. whether it's solar fried birds, i think 7,000 or so that fly over a mirrored number of acres in death valley that is reflecting sunlight to a boiler,

which has not proved that it is cost effective, and in the meantime creates so much heat that it has caused the cables that are necessary to produce the heat to be fried, but also birds that fly over this, 7,000, so the environmentalists, i'm surprised they are not all over that. and gambling monkeys, to see whether or not monkeys were willing to take greater risk and continue gambling if they had a reward for it like, in their case, more food. i could have proven that with my dog who will eat anything i put down there. and no matter how much i do put down there. but we're talking about several hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars. those are the ludicrous. they're designed to catch people's attention so they will pay more attention to some of the examples of egregious wastes of money designed for perhaps a

good motive or the right purpose. but exposed as something that falls within that category. one of my very first waste of the week, i talked about the issue of double dipping on social security disability and unemployment insurance. you know, to receive clearance to receive social security disability payments, you have to prove you can't work, you're disabled, you can't work, but to receive unemployment insurance, you have to be working and then told you no longer can keep your job, and in that interim period of time until you get a new job, we're going to pay you insurance benefits. well, what we found out -- well, what the general accounting office found out was the fact that people were getting checks for doing both. you could do one or the other, but not both. that was no small change. that was $6 billion -- i think it was $5.7 billion of waste

every year documented. well, here we are for number 47, and i would like to highlight yet another serious and very concerning example of waste. improper payments of taxpayer money through medicare. all of us agree that medicare is an important program for millions of americans, and we need to do what we can to preserve these important health care benefits for those that are dependent on them and need it, but an essential part of preserving these benefits is protecting medicare from waste, fraud and abuse. throughout its history, we have read and it has been determined by inspector generals and by the general accounting office that medicare has been plagued by improper payments, which are payments that are not justified but do occur because of fraud or

bureaucratic mismanagement. these improper payments not only threaten the solvency of medicare, they leave millions of seniors vulnerable, because when these improper payments are the result of fraud and abuse, they can jeopardize the health and well-being of medicare beneficiaries for this reason. the reason is that medicare is going broke. it's careening toward insolvency. the medicare trustees have said that we're only 12 short years away of insolvency under medicare. and so when you determine waste, fraud and abuse on a year after year after year basis, in the billions and tens of billions of dollars, these are dollars not available to keep that program solvent, and that's going to have a devastating effect on the ability for us to provide the

medicare services that people of a certain age need. how many taxpayers' dollars am i talking about today? well, in fiscal year 2015 alone, just in that year, the last year where the audits have been done, the centers for medicare and medicaid services or c.m.s., which administers medicare, improperly paid out $59 billion for health services. in one single year, $59 billion, billion, of improper payments, representing nearly 10% of the total amount of medicare spent that year. just last week, as i said, the medicare trustees said it would be insolvent by 2008. think about that -- just that one year, that $59 billion -- what that $59 billion could do to help keep the program solvent. all of this is why it's all the more necessary for congress, the administration and the health

care agencies to work in unison to solve this crisis of medicare and solvency. there is a group known as the medicare fraud strike force, and i commend whoever put that idea in play, it needs to be advanced significantly, but the idea here was the strike force could root out the bad actors and bring them to justice. recently, as an example, the strike force uncovered a ring of over 300 people, from physicians and pharmacists to nurses and government officials that have allegedly conspired to defraud medicare out of $900 million. how did they do it? well, some of these examples of this fraud ring includes the billing of medicare procedures that providers claim took place after the patient passed away. they were submitting medicare

claims for dead patients and receiving significant payments in the amount of $900 million. other providers billed medicare for home health care, which is reserved for bedridden seniors for services not even provided to the patients in need. it was fraud, in terms of people submitting bills to c.m.s. and receiving payments when the services were not provided. in detroit, a so-called medical clinic billed medicare for tens of millions of dollars when in fact the clinic was determined to be a front for a narcotics diversion scheme. the clinic operators and recruiters targeted poor drug addicts in need of help and offered those addicts narcotics so the clinic could then bill medicare for services that were not provided. tens of millions of dollars. these are just examples of what the general accounting office

found and the i.g.'s found in terms of looking at medicare payments. that's why i continue to come down here every week to urge my colleagues in the senate, in the house of representatives and the administration to take the necessary steps to tighten the screws on bad actors. in medicare, in agencies across the realm of this government, not only because they are gambling away with the help of some of america's most vulnerable patients but also because we have such precious little time to work to save this program from insolvency. our goal should be -- in fact it must be -- to protect seniors, to promote good government practices and achieve real savings by addressing these issues now. so with that, i'm adding another major amount of waste, fraud and abuse to our ever-growing total. this week, $59 billion for

medicare improper payments, bringing our total all the way to $234 billion-plus of waste, fraud and abuse of hard-earned taxpayer dollars. and we wonder why the public has lost confidence and faith in their elected representatives, in their institutions of government, when they see this kind of bureaucratic mess, we see this kind of waste of hard-earned tax dollars, the fraud that is involved here that is not detected and the abuse and the terrible decisionmaking of people who respectfully work for government agencies but don't exercise the kind of judgment that the american taxpayer expects from them in terms of dealing with the money that they send here to washington. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: mr. president, i wanted to thank the senator from vermont who is next for yielding me just a couple of minutes here. i just want to be brief but to the point. congress is a week away from recessing before the conventions. we have yet to appropriate significant funds to fight zika. at this point, quite frankly, i don't care whose fault it is anymore, republicans, democrats, this whole partisan stuff that is going on around this issue. it's inexcusable. we every single day now have massive numbers of zika cases being reported. in my home state every day, new records are being set. just today a new case was found in a county that hadn't had a case yet. 45 out of 50 states in this country now have a zika case. we have yet to see a local transmission, but it is coming. i don't know for the life of me how anyone in this chamber can go back home a week from now and say we're going to be on recess for six weeks in the peak of the summer, in the peak of mosquito season, in the peak of travel season and we have appropriated nothing to deal with the zika

virus. this makes absolutely no sense to me. do you want to know why congress' approval rating is at 1%, 2%, 3%, if that? because on an issue of public health, we cannot even find a way forward. my hope is that in the days to come, we will find an understanding that allows us to move forward. and i'm not just talking to the senate. i'm also talking to the house. let's just appropriate money and move forward and deal with this issue appropriately with the urgency that it deserves, or everyone is going to have to answer to their constituents why this public health crisis blossomed and bloomed and we did nothing about it. and so i truly hope that in the hours and days leading up to our recess, we will find a rapid and quick way forward so we can address this and fix it and give our people the help they need in the short term and ultimately move towards the money we need to research for a vaccine so this issue can be prevented -- so this disease can be prevented from spreading in the future. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: thank you. mr. president, i rise to speak in very strong opposition to the roberts-stabenow bill concerning the labeling of genetically modified ork nistles, g.m.o.'s, and to -- modified organisms, g.m.o.'s, and to discuss an amendment of mine that i hope will get to the floor as soon as possible. mr. president, the simple truth is that people have the right to know what is in the food they eat, and when parents go to the store and purchase food, they have the right to know what is in the food their kids are going to be eating. that is why 64 countries all over the world, including the european union, japan, australia, brazil, russia, china require labeling of foods con tank genetically modified organisms, g.m.o.'s, and that is why states like my own state of

vermont, maine, connecticut and alaska have adopted laws to label foods containing g.m.o.'s, and that is why the major environmental groups in this country, including the natural resources defense council, the sierra club, the league of conservation voters, the environmental working group, center for food safety, food and water watch and others have all come out in opposition of the roberts-stabenow bill. it is no secret that my own state of vermont has led the way in requiring companies to label their products. last friday, vermont became the first state in the nation to require g.m.o. labeling, and several other states have undertaken similar efforts. passage of vermont's law was a triumph for consumers, for ordinary americans over the powerful interests of companies like monsanto and other

multinational food industry corporations. unfortunately, this looks -- the victory in vermont appears to be a hollow victory. the major agribusiness and biotech companies disagree with the right of consumers to know what is in their food, and not only do they disagree, they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying and in campaign contributions to overturn the g.m.o. right to know legislation that states have already passed and that other states are on the verge of passing. they have also spent many millions more to pass federal legislation like what we are considering today which would deny states the right to go forward in this area. let's be clear this is just another shameful example of how

big money interests are using their influence to enact policies that are contrary to what the vast majority of the american people want and what they support. these companies are spending millions and tens of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars to make certain that their interests prevail against what ordinary americans feel very, very strongly about. the grocery manufacturers association which sued and lost in trying to stop vermont's law has 34 lobbyists working on this issue alone. 34 lobbyists. they spent $8.5 million lobbying in 2015, and in 2016, the grocery manufacturers association has already spent over $1.5 million in total

lobbying. monsanto has spent $2 million in 2016 lobbying congress. the environmental working group has calculated that food and biotech companies and trade associations have spent nearly $200 million to oppose state g.m.o. labeling initiatives like vermont's legislation. when combined with washington lobbying expenditures that note g.m.o. labeling as a purpose, the total amount spent by labeling opponents is close to $400 million. $400 million. $400 million in order to prevent the people of our country in knowing what is in the food that they eat. this particular piece of corporate-backed legislation that we are considering right

now will create a confusing, misleading and unenforceable national standard for labeling g.m.o.'s. this bill will preempt my state's law, the law in the state of vermont, roll back the progress we have made, and is a huge setback for consumers' right to know what is in their food. i would say to my republican colleagues who so often tell us about the need to get the federal government out of the lives of the people who talk about states' rights, what this legislation does is preempt a law passed in the state of vermont in which thousands of our people were involved in passing and which the state legislature held numerous hearings on, where the state law was sued and yet sustained by a court. we have gone through all of that

in the state of vermont. we have maine passing similar legislation. connecticut passing legislation. alaska passing legislation. and yet many of my friends who are great states writers who believe how important the role of states is, they're prepared to overturn all of the work done in these four states. now what is specifically bad above and beyond the preemption aspects of this legislation? instead of a uniform labeling standard like vermont's law, the language in this bill allows text, symbols or an electronic q.r. code to be used. this is intentionally confusing to consumers and the information may be entirely inaccessible if the consumer does not have access to the internet. the q.r. code is not required to have text next no it to make it

clear that the code provides additional information about g.m.o.'s. it can merely say and i quote -- "scan here for more food information "," end of quote. that makes no sense. people may not even know to scan it to learn more about g.m.o.'s specifically. and you can imagine how ridiculous this will be in the real world when a mom goes to a store with two kids, running around. she's supposed to take out her cell phone, supposed to scan it in a store that may or may not have good internet connections. this is not an effort to provide information. this is an effort to deny information to consumers. mr. president, reading information right on the label takes a matter ever seconds --

of seconds. why would we require families and shoppers to take considerable time when o under vermont's law they only need a moment to look at a label. right now we have labels that tell us the amount of calories and other information that is in a product. we look at it ndz we make a judgment as to -- and we make a judgment as to whether or not this is a product we wish to purchase. and that is clearly what should be the case with products that contain g.m.o.'s. there is also an argument to be made that this bill is discriminatory in its impact. putting the onerous on the consumer, making it necessary for that consumer to have a smartphone and internet access prohibits those without that access. not everybody in america owns a cell phone. many low income people and working people do not own a cell

phone. as yesterday's "new york times" noted in an editorial -- quote -- "the biggest problem with the senate bill is that instead of requiring a simple label as the vermont law does, it would allow food companies to put the information in electronic codes that consumers would have to scan with smartphones or at scanners installed by grocery stores." according to "the new york times" -- quote -- "the only reason to do this would be to make the information less accessible to the pu -- to the public." end of quote. and "the new york times" has it exactly right. further the bill allows the u.s. department of agriculture to le on what percentage of g.m.o. material is present in a particular food before it gets labeled. in contrast the vermont and

european standards, both of which require products with more than nine-tenths of 1% g.m.o. to be labeled. the roberts-stabenow bill also contains a huge loophole in the labeling requirement stating that there is no labeling requirement for g.m.o. foods that could have occurred -- quote -- "through conventional breeding or found in nature." end of quote. essentially if the genetic engineering done by a company could have a card in nature, there's no requirement to label it which would prevent g.m.o. corn, beet, sugar and soy oils from being labeled. the f.d.a. has confirmed this loophole stating that as the language is currently written -- quote -- "many of the foods from genetically engineered sources will not be subject" -- end of quote -- under this bill. consumers will be left in the dark for at least another two years, maybe longer.

once usda has published its regulations, there is no mandatory timeline for companies to comply. in other words, we are pushing this issue further and further into the future. and perhaps the real giveaway as to why this is not a serious piece of legislation is that more shockingly, this bill imposes no federal penalties whatsoever for violating the so-called labeling requirement making the law essentially meaningless. in other words, you have a confusing law that will not be utilized by most people but then on top of all of that, if a company does not obey the law, there is no penalty whatsoever. ithat will give a great incentie for companies to continue to do nothing. in other words, this bill is

weak. it is full of loopholes and it has no requirement to comply. in addition to the bill's many flaws, this bill most significantly is not necessary. in fact, many large companies like campbell's, feet toe lay, -- frito lay, kellogg's have already begun to label their products nationally and in anticipation in vermont's law. here is just -- mr. president, a label that appears on mm -- on m&m's. everybody knows m&m's maferred by mars, -- manufactured by mars, one of the major manufacturers in the country. six word, partially produced with genetic engineering. sorry, five years. that's it. it's right here on the label. this is what you'll see if you pick up a package of m&m's

today. people can make the determination as to whether they want to buy the product or not and other major companies have already -- are already doing that. it is now on -- campbell's is doing it. frito lay is doing it. kellogg's is doing it and conagra is doing it. the major companies are already complying with the law. we do not need to go beyond that. and guess what? these companies that began to label their products, they did it and the sky didn't fall. people i guess are still buying m&m's and other candies and the other products manufactured by these companies. mr. president, in addition to consumers' right to know, it is important to note that when we talk about g.m.o.'s, it is not just the question of the manipulation of genetic material. it's about the chemicals necessary to make these crops

productive. the environmental working group has exposed that g.o.p.'s have -- g.m.o.'s have not decreased pesticide and herbicide use as promised. in fact the use of toxic chemicals to grow food has only increased. herbicide use has increased exponentially and glyphosate used specifically has increased by 3,000% since the 1990's. in the state of vermont, monson toe -- monsanto promised that g.m.o. would allow them to reduce the amount of chemicals needed for production. instead herbicide and fertilizer use of vermont dairy farms has almost doubled there between 2002 and 2012 just to keep up with the need for more pesticides and herbicides to get enough corn to feed the dairy cows. this is troubling not only because it is extremely

expensive for farmers to keep up with the seed and pesticides needs. it is also very dangerous because eight of the -- of the ingredients in use have been linked to birth defects and contaminated drinking water. in addition to these concerns, i also want to appeal to those of my colleagues who have come to the senate floor to speak in support of states' rights. as i said earlier, make no mistake about it. this is significantly a state's rights issue and this bill is an assault on states' rights. this bill would preempt vermont's laws, connecticut's laws and maine's laws according to the center no food safety, this bill would preempt more than 100 state and municipal food and seed laws. the center notes specifically virginia's seed law which allows

farmers to have the critical information they need to make informed choices about which seed is the most appropriate for them to purchase and plant. likewise to name just a few of the other state laws that would be preempted. it would override alaska's labeling law which requires the genetically engineered fish be labeled. the roberts-stabenow bill will also preempt a florida statute that requires a permit for the release of exotic organisms and includes genetically modified organisms. roberts-stabenow bill would preempt a michigan statute that created an invasive species advisory counsel. it would preempt a missouri statute that authorized the state entomologists to determine whether something is not only a plant pest but also whether the pest is of such a harmful nature that its introduction into or

dissemination within the state should be prevented. it would also preempt a south carolina regulation that defines plant pests. in other words, i find it interesting that this legislation has the support of a vast majority of republicans who day after day tell us how they want to get the federal government out of people's lives. but this legislation preempts dozens of state laws all over this country passed by state legislatures and signed by the governors of those states. mr. president, these are just a few of the laws, by the way. there are dozens and dozens more that would be nullified under the roberts-stabenow bill. mr. president, the amendment that i intend to offer which i hope my colleagues will all support would make vermont's law

the national standard. for those who have argued that companies would be unable to comply with a 50-state patchwork of g.m.o. regulation, my amendment would alleviate that concern. specifically vermont's law unlike the bill before the senate enjoyed a full hearing and amendment process. it was much discussed in the vermont state legislature. vermont's law was years in the making and legislators heard hours of testimony from dozens of stakeholders, including organic farmers and environmental organizations. the roberts-stabenow language has had none of this scrutiny and was brought to the floor by a procedural means without one hearing or one committee markup. mr. president, unlike the roberts-stabenow bill, vermont's

law requires clear on package labeling instead of allowing a confusing q.r. code. under vermont's law and this amendment consumers can glance quickly at a product and be able to determine the g.m.o. contents with no need of a smartphone or internet connection. and once again and very importantly, many major food companies are already complying with vermont's law. once again pick up a package of m&m's and there it is right now on the label. there it is, five words, "naturally processed with genetic engineering." mars candy that manufactures m&m's has done that. it's not a problem. other companies are already doing the same thing. what makes sense is to build on what vermont has done, not come up with an unenforceable

confusing weak piece of legislation paid for by the large food corporations in this country. this amendment also, making vermont the national standard will also prevent the gaping loopholes contained in the roberts-stabenow language that will prevent labeling of the most common g.m.o. foods. unlike the roberts-stabenow language, this amendment defines food and genetic engineering in a way that would require labeling of foods derived from g.m.o.'s, like stamps, oil -- like sta starchs or high-fructoe corn syrup. the none of these will require labeling under the roberts-stabenow language. also my amendment sets a specific percentage of g.m.o.'s in food to trigger the labeling requirement, .9%, which is

consistent with vermont's law and european union standards. the under the roberts-stabenow language, this determination will be left up to the usda, which could require 10% before labeling or 51%, we just don't know at this point. my amendment also contains a legitimate enforcement provision consistent with vermont's law. my amendment sets consistent penalties for improper labeling and provides for consumers to be able to sue to ensure enforcement. mr. president, the issue of labeling of our food is not controversial. it is something the american people want. it is something that common sense dictates. the overwhelming majority of americans favor g.m.o. labeling, nearly nine out of ten. people have a right to know what is in the food they eat. instead, the needs of consumers, the needs of the american people

have been completely disregarded in this legislation at the behest of major corporate interests and campaign donors. mr. president, congress must stand up to the demands of monsanto and other multinational food industry corporations and reject the roberts-stabenow piece of legislation. my amendment would provide a meaningful alternative to the confusing and ineffective measure we are considering, and i ask that colleagues support my amendment. and with that, i would reserve -- mr. leahy: before the senator yields the floor, would he -- we talked about what vermont did. and, mr. president, isn't it a fact that the united states are senate didn't hold one single hearing, have one single witness

come before it before they sent this bill. is that correct? mr. sanders: my colleague from vermont is absolutely correct. in vermont there were a number of discussions, there were a number of hearings. not here in the senate. mr. leahy: in fact, in the vermont legislature, is it not a fact that they had at least 50 -- 5-0 -- with at least 130 witnesses? sanders sanders m-- mr. sanders: my colleague from vermont makes a very, very important point. this vermont, this issue was seriously discussed. over 50 hearings were held, different points of view and objections were raised. and i would ask my colleague, just to confirm with me, how many hearings on this important and controversial bill were held hearing in the united states senate? mr. leahy: mr. president, i would answer my friend and colleague from vermont, especially as a member of the agriculture committee i'm well-aware of this, not single hearing, not one single witness.

unlike vermont, 50 hearings, 130 witnesses. they expressed every single view over two years' time and debated it. we didn't have two minutes of debate and discussion. vermont did two years. mr. sanders: so here's what we have -- and i thank my friend from vermont for raising this issue. on one hand you have a state -- the state of vermont, which addressed this issue in a serious way, listening to all points of view, having the legislature go over this in a thorough manner. and here you have the united states senate, after many, many millions of dollars in lobbying efforts, in campaign contributions, override the work of the state of vermont and not having one hearing -- not one hearing. not hearing from consumers, environmental groups, farm organizations, rushing it

through in the last week or two before we adjourn for summer break. and i thank the senator from vermont for raising that enormously important issue. with that, mr. president, i would reserve -- i yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

mr. roberts: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: mr. president, i rise today as the senate considers legislation on an issue that is critically important to our nation's food supply. from our producers in the fields to our families purchasing food in the aisles of the grocery stores, without senate action that we're considering today, this country will be hit with a wrecking ball that will disrupt the entire -- the entire food

chain. we need to act now to pass our amendment to s. 764. this is a bipartisan -- a bipartisan approach that provides a permanent solution to the patchwork of biotechnology labeling laws that will wreak havoc on the floor of interstate commerce of agriculture and food products in our nation's marketplace. and that is what this is exactly about, the marketplace. it is not about safety. i.t. no-- it's not about healthr nutrition. it is about marketing. science has proven again and again that the use of agriculture biotechnology is 100% safe. senator tillis provided on the floor just a moment ago -- senator tillis from north carolina -- that in fact the agriculture committee last year heard from the three federal agencies tasked with regulating

agriculture biotechnology, the usda's animal and plant health inspection service, the environmental protection agency, and the food and drug administration. now, their work was based on sound science and is the gold standard for our policy-making. including this policy we are debating today, one of the most important food and agriculture decisions in recent decades. many people say this issue is the biggest issue for agriculture in 20 years. i agree. at our hearing, the federal government expert witnesses highlighted the steps that their agencies have already taken to ensure that agriculture biotechnology is safe, safe to other plants, safe to the environment, and safe to our food supply. it was clear that our regulatory system ensures biotechnology crops are among the most tested in the history of agriculture.

at the conclusion of the hearing, virtually all of the senate agriculture committee members were in agreement. not one disagreed. thus, it is clear that what we're facing today is not a safety or a health issue, despite claims by a couple of my colleagues on the senate floor. it is a market issue. this is really a conversation about a few states dictating to every state the way food moves from farmers to consumers. this patchwork approach of mandates adds cost to national food prices. in fact, requiring changes in the production or on packaging for a single state would impact citizens in each of our home states. a recent study on the impact of

on-packaging labels estimates that the cost to consumers could total as much as $82 billion. annually. $82 billion. approximately $1,050 per hardworking american family. let me repeat that, $1,050 per hard-working american family. now is not the time for congress to make food more expensive for anybody to eat or produce, not the securely and certainly not the -- not the consumer and not the farmer. today's farmers are asked to produce more affordable food to meet growing demands at home and around a very troubled and hungry world. at the same time they are facing increased challenges to production, including limited land and water resources, uncertain weather patterns and pest and disease issues. agriculture biotechnology has become a valuable tool, mr. president, in ensuring the success of the american farmer

and meeting the challenge of increasing yield and a more efficient, safe and responsible manner. in fact, thanks to modern agriculture and agriculture technology, we have seen a 48% increase in corn yields. that's good for the farmer. that's good for the consumer. that's good for a troubled and hungry world. and a 36% increase in soybean yields in the last 20 years. that's the value of agriculture biotechnology. now i have also heard, and i do understand the concern from some of my colleagues about consumers and available information about our food. some consumers want to know more about ingredients. this is a good thing. consumers should take an interest in their food and where it comes from and the farmers and ranchers that produce their food. this legislation puts forward policies that will help

consumers find information. almost a guarantee. and it does so without jeopardizing the technology upon which our farmers rely. more importantly, the legislation before us provides an immediate and comprehensive solution to the unworkable state by state patchwork of labeling laws. state consumer protection laws of anything beyond the wrecking ball we see related to biotechnology labeling mandates are codified as exempt from preemption, and we ensure that the solution to the state patchwork, one thing we all agree on is effective. the amendment focuses on human food that may or may not be bioengineered. we do not set up any new offices at the department of agriculture and minimize any impact on any other agency. instead we direct the secretary to establish a uniform national

disclosure standard through rule making. it sets national uniformity that allows for the free flow of interstate commerce, a power granted to congress in the u.s. constitution. let me point this out. the commerce clause, article 1, section 8, clause number 3, the congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the indian tribes. note among the several states. more than several states today. this labeling uniformity is based on science and allows the solution and allows the value chain from farmer to processer to shipper to retailer to consumer to continue as the free market intended. to accomplish national uniformity, we crafted a mandatory disclosure

requirement. we're talking about mandatory. we're talking about mandatory disclosure, not just labeling. the senate bipartisan agreement is mandatory disclosure with several options. text on package, assemble or an tropbic link to -- an electronic link to a web site. the legislation is clear that the link could not contain text on the package that could be used to denigrate, to denigrate biotechnology. it will simply say scan here for more food information. we also allow for web sites or telephone numbers to satisfy the requirements for small food manufacturers and we completely exempt very small food manufacturers and restaurants from having to comply. the disclosure requirement applies to food subject to the food and drug and cosmetic act labeling requirements as well as

some meat and poultry products. we do not include alcohol as those items are subject to labeling requirements under a different authority at the u.s. treasury. in this respect, alcohol is similar to other food that is labeled under a different authority than the food, drug, and cosmetic act. the scope of this agreement includes human food, not animal feed. the language prohibits the secretary from considering any food product derived from an animal to be bioengineered based only upon the animal eating bioengineered feed. it is important, as with any federal legislation on this topic, for congress to consider scientific fact and also unintended consequences. we include a safety statement. the agreement ensures that the regulations will treat bioengineered food the same as nonbioengineered in terms of the counterpart. we agree that these products

have been found safe through the federal regulatory process. this legislation -- and i want to emphasize this. this legislation -- and i want my colleagues to understand thie than 1,000 organizations large and small, representing the entire food chain. and that number continues to grow every day. never before in the history of the senate agriculture committee to any committee -- never before have we seen such a coalition of constituents all united behind such an effort, and their message is clear. it is time for us to act. it is time for us to provide certainty in the marketplace. it is time for us to pass this amendment. now i appreciate the bipartisan support of those on the committee who join me by voting to approve our committee bill, those who supported a solution

in march, and those who have voted to consider this agreement. we've again made significant changes to address the concerns of the ranking member and others. now we all must carry this across the finish line. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan approach and protect the safest, most abundant and affordable food supply in the world. i want to say something else. i want to talk about the men and women who the agriculture committee represents and who everyone on the agriculture committee should protect. and i'm going to describe that person to my colleagues on the floor with reverence to paul harvey. and on the eighth day god looked down on his planned paradise and said "i need a caretaker."

so god made a farmer. god said i need somebody willing to get up before dawn, milk cows, work all day in the field,s milk cows again, eat supper, then go to town, stay past midnight at the meeting of the school board. so god made a farmer. i need somebody with arms strong enough to wrestle a calf and yet gentle enough to deliver his own grandchild. somebody to call -- tame cantankerous machinery, have to wait on lunch until his wife is done feeding visiting ladies and then tell the ladies to be sure and come back real soon, and mean it. so god made a farmer. god said i need somebody willing to sit up all night with a newborn colt and watch it die. watch it die. then dry his eyes and say maybe

next year. i need somebody who can shape an ax handle from a persimmon sprout, chew a horse with a hunk of tire, who can use wire with shoe scrap and will put in another 72 hours. so god made a farmer. god had to have somebody willing to ride the ruts at the double speed to get his heavy hay ahead of the rain clouds and stop in midfield and race to help when he sees the first smoke from a neighbor's place. so god made a farmer. god said i need somebody strong enough to clear trees, heave bails yet gentle enough to tame lambs and tend the pink combed pulllets who will stop his mower

for about an hour, to splint the broken leg of a meadow lark. it had to be somebody who plowed deep and straight not cutting corners, somebody to seed, weed, feed and tie the fleece and strain the milk and replenish the cell feeder and finish a hard week's wording with a five -- mile drive to church. somebody who would laugh and then sigh and then reply with smiling eyes when his son says he wants to spend his life doing what his dad does. so god made a farmer. it is our responsibility to protect that farmer and to protect what he does to feed this nation and a troubled world with the best quality food at the lowest price in the history of the world. so let us protect that farmer.

mr. president, i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: good afternoon, mr. president. i'm pleased that it looks like we're going to be voting this afternoon on a measure that would for the first time give american families access to g.m.o. information about the food they buy. and as my colleague from kansas prepares to, i think, leave the chamber, i want to express my thanks to him, to his staff, to senator debbie stabenow of ohio, her staff, and a lot of others, including members of my own staff, and the administration, especially tom vilsack, secretary of agriculture, for the work that they and many

others have done to bring us to this point in this important debate. mr. president, on a similar visit to of all places tanzania about a year ago, and we got into a debate with, entering a discussion with a lot of african leaders, young african leaders and scholars, and a number of democrat and republican house members and senate members. the debate kind of ended up going in an area we never expected it to go. we ended up talking about drought in africa. we ended up talking about what's going on with climate change that exacerbates the problems with raising crops. and we talked about how it might be possible for them to use genetically modified seeds to better endure, survive drought and to enable them to maybe raise some crops that would be more health feed for their

constituents. so we ended up in a debate, interesting debate on sound science with respect to sea level rise, climate change, and the message from our democrats who happen to be present at the seminar, our republican friends should be guided by sound science when it comes to climate change, sea level rise. delaware is the lowest lying state in the country. we're especially mindful of this issue. and republicans, after we had to remind them of the tphaoeud to rely on good science with respect to climate change and sea level rise had this rejoinder for us democrats. they said maybe if we would agree to that, you guys, the democrats, should agree to be guided by good science with respect to genetically modified organisms. and as it turns out, there are close to 99% of scientists around the world believe that climate change is real, sea

level rise is real and we human beings are directly contributing to that. and i'm told that 99% of the scientists on the other side of the issue with respect to genetically modified organisms, they've concluded -- we've had recently in the last several weeks additional confirmation of this that most of the scientists in the world who follow this thing think we ought to be guided by sound science with respect to genetically modified organisms and that food is safe for us to eat. is safe for us to eat. i hope as we come down -- i don't know if this is the homestretch yet -- and debate on this important issue, genetically modified organisms and the safety of our food, i hope we'll keep in mind that debate that took place almost a year ago on the other side of the world. i said to my colleagues around here any number of times, people say to me what are the proudest things i've done in my life and i discussed this issue -- i

don't know if the presiding officer remembers did -- i'm proudest of raising two, actually three boys who are now all grown and off into the world on their own. my wife and i want to make sure they grow up healthy, sound and strong, had nutritious food to eat. i felt as governor of delaware and chairman of the national governors association we did well. i want to make sure that kids, not just my own kids but young people all over the world and not so young people have the benefit of eating healthy and nutritious food. so i understand the calls for parents who want to know about the food that they're putting on their tables, in this country and other countries as well. i believe the stabenow-roberts compromise for g.m.o. labeling will help all consumers, all consumers make more informed choices, no matter where they live in america. part of my job, part of our job in congress is to ensure that our federal regulations set forth a reasonable framework for

american businesses, too, so they can grow and thrive. a week ago, our country's first g.m.o. labeling law took effect in one state in vermont, but that law only regulates food being sold within that state's lines. i call myself a recovering governor, but as a former governor, i know a patchwork of regulations that apply to interstate commerce is very problematic. businesses want and need certainty and predictability. for food businesses large and small waiting for each state to produce its own labeling laws, its own rules would create i think a haphazard and really totally unmanageable regulatory landscape. i believe it's absolutely critical that we act on the federal level to create labeling requirements that gives consumers the information that they need and deserve without creating a logistical nightmare that would stifle american businesses. the question is can we have

both, or are they mutually exclusive of one another? i think we can have both. under the roberts-stabenow compromise in the next two years, all foods that contain g.m.o.'s will be labeled with a q.r. code that sends consumers directly to the producer's web site and outlines clear information about what's in the product that the consumer is about to buy or considering buying. that means consumers in the dozens of states that haven't yet acted to require g.m.o. labeling will have better information about their food, no matter where they buy it. sometimes it is said that a little common sense goes a long way. this, mr. president, is a commonsense solution to an issue our constituents have asked us to address. not only am i pleased by the agreement that we have reached but i am also pleased by the way that we got here. i am -- my wife says i am an eternal optimist. maybe too optimistic some days.

i hope that the bipartisan work that we have done to get here led by again senators stabenow and senator roberts remind our constituents that they, too, can be optimistic by the ability of congress to get things done. this comes on the heels of the bipartisan work done on the toxic and substance control act where democrats and republicans work together with the administration to pass one of the best environmental laws that we have gone maybe in decades in this country. and finally, i'd like to address some of the critics of this compromise who assert that we didn't go far enough to protect americans from g.m.o.'s. we talk often about the overwhelming scientific data that proves our climate is changing at a troubling rate and that humans are the primary drivers of that, and on g.m.o.'s, the scientific data is also overwhelming. i mentioned earlier in my remarks how at tanzania, at the

african institute, how republicans and democrats exchanged ideas on g.m.o.'s and cliepg. more recently in may of this year, the national academy of sciences released an independent report that determined genetically engineered crops are just as safe to eat as conventional crops. in may of this year, i will tell you again, the national academy of sciences released an independent report that determined genetically engineered crops are just as safe to eat as conventional crops. more recently, more recently, more than 100 nobel laureates sent a letter to greenpeace. the united nations and governments around the world. what do they have to say, those 100 nobel laureates? they urged all the folks to end opposition to g.m.o.'s. i think our federal government should take a reasonable and principled and science-based approach to address the issue of g.m.o. labeling. that's exactly what this

bipartisan bill seeks to do. i believe it's what it does. again, i want to thank our colleagues, senators roberts and stabenow, for working so hard and their staffs with ours and others to achieve a compromise that i think is a win for consumers, companies and farmers, and it shows the country that congress can work together across the aisle to get things done. mr. president, i want to change gears here for a moment, if i could. mr. roberts: would you yield for a statement? mr. carper: i would be happy to yield. mr. roberts: i thank the senator. this has been a long process, well over a year. we had the committee hearing within the agriculture committee months ago. the e.p.a., f.d.a., e.p.a., many

witnesses declaring that agriculture and biotechnology is safe. i have changed the name because g.m.o. has become a pejorative. it's hard to fix it, but that's what it is, agriculture biotechnology. and we went to work and passed a bill 14-6. then we tried to change the bill so that the minority could possibly vote for it. unfortunately, we're not able to get the required number of votes for cloture. back then, it would have been very appropriate, it seems to me, for anybody interested to bring their amendment to the floor. senator merkley is here. we offered, or at least through staff. he tells me he didn't get the message. i was for all amendments at that particular time, but we didn't even get cloture. mr. merkley: mr. president, would the senator yield for a question? mr. roberts: i do not have the time. the senator from delaware has yielded to me. i will finish my statement in

just a minute if i can. and so here we are with the jul, and here we are with the vermont labeling law becoming in effect the national law. and i know there are some for that, but there was one senator from the other side of the aisle who went to work, and that was the senator from delaware to get a reasonable bill. this is a well-crafted compromise, and if it is a well-crafted compromise between the ranking member and the chairman with appropriate people like the senator himself working hard to get support for that, we should go ahead and get this done. and i just appreciate the willingness of the gentleman to work in a bipartisan fashion, and i thank him again. mr. carper: reclaiming my time. boy, i'm glad i yielded. thank you so much for those words. and for the opportunity to

participate in this process. i want to change gears, mr. president, if i may to talk about another battle going on in another part of the world. it is the battle to degrade and destroy isis. recently on the senate floor, mr. president, i heard a couple of our colleagues in the majority, i believe, claim that the president, the current administration, is not doing enough to fight isis. however, i would just say to my friends -- and they are my friends, they know that -- in the majority are forgetting some of the key facts, and i just want to revisit that. the truth is they were taking -- that we're taking the fight to isis and making serious progress in the battle to degrade and to destroy them. as i say, it's not time to spike the football, not in the end zone. maybe in the red zone, progress is being made. i'm going to talk about a little bit of that today. i want to start by directing my

attention to this map. see if i have a pointer here. i do. and for folks trying to figure out what this map says, it says this is iraq and a big part of this area here is iraq. part of this area right down here is iraq. right here is baghdad. right here is baghdad. that's syria over here. we have got turkey up here. iran is over here on the other side of iraq. a couple of years ago, these folks in isis have decided they were going to establish their own cali fight, if you will, a country that would be really a theocracy guided by their perverted view of islam. not the view held by most muslims in the world. islam is one of the great religions of the world, and i'm struck by the more i learn about

it of the similarities between the faith, i'm protestant. i'm not sure what our presiding officer is. we are here, people of different faiths. whatever your faith happens to be, almost any faith in the world, protestant, catholic, jew, muslim, hindu, buddhist, even confucius used to embody and embrace the golden rule, treat other people the way we want to be treated. there is a section in the new testament, matthew 25, where we read about the least of us, when i was hungry, you feed me. when i was thirsty, you gave me a drink. when i was naked, you clothed me. there is a passage in the koran that is actually very similar to what we have in the bible, in the new testament. but nonetheless, to folks who have this perverted view of islam, launched an effort about two years ago in this area that

we see here in -- i'm going to call this sort of salmon-colored area like that and the area that's more like a green color, that was the area two years ago that isis seized control of, and there are some other little pockets around these two countries, around syria and iraq. but that's what they took over. rolled right over the iraqis while the iraqi military units fled and left. their leaders did, too. we had a fight on our hands. the bad guys got within about 2y got no further. our president, our country, has helped lead the way to put together a 16-nation coalition. we are, if you will, different

from them. some are protestant, catholic, mixed religions. we're a lot of different religions, if you will, that are represented in the coalitions. some are democracies. some are not. some have a king or a queen. but it's an interesting -- interesting group. and a diverse group. but 60-some nations were put together. i mentioned that i spent a fair number of years of my life as a naval fighting officer. five years during the vietnam war and then right up to the end of the cold war. i had the opportunity to participate in missions that involve u.s. naval assets, aircraft like the one i was a flight crew member of. worked with submarines, u.s. submarines with u.s. naval ships. it's not always easy to do that. communications are difficult, conditions are difficult. then when we try to introduce and work with units from other branches of other countries'

military units, other naval units, it's even more difficult. well, imagine trying to put together a coalition of 16 different nations, speaking different languages, different modes of operation, different aircraft, different ships, different artillery, and to try to get us all to pull in the same direction and take on this battle. it's taken a while. it's taken a while. but you know what's happening now? here's what happened. the land that the folks isis took over two years ago has been cut in iraq over here by almost half. 47%. almost half. then while the area of syria overtaken by, controlled by isis is a lot smaller than the land in iraq, 20% of that land has been recaptured from isis. last year, iraqi counterterrorism forces backed

by u.s. air support scored key victories were taking place in a place called ramadi. here is baghdad. to the west of baghdad, 30, 40 miles to the west of baghdad. and then a place called tikrit. we remember particular witness because it's the birthplace where saddam hussein grew up. and the last couple of weeks, some more good news. what's happened is in the last couple of weeks, fallujah, which is right here, -- and these three cities all make up -- these three cities make up what is called the sunni triangle where a lot of the sunnis in iraq live. they have now all been -- once controlled by isis, now fallen under the control of the alliance, our forces. as we speak, kurdish, iraqi,

syrian, democratic forces backed by u.s. special forces, are training and making preparations to retake other key isis strongholds. here's baghdad. you go up to the north, northwest, mosul. up here next to the areas controlled by the kurds, part of iraq but controlled by the kurds. and over here, almost due west from mosul to iraqa which is the spirit crawl capital if you will of isis and this area, those are where the fights are headed ne next. for weeks american air pilots conducted scores of air strikes on these two isis strongholds, mosul and raqqa and in order to clear the way for iraqi-syrian partners on the ground. we are using f-18 aircraft, f-16, some cases carrier based out of the med, out of the

persian gulf. we're using drones. we're using a-10's, b-52's which are being staged out of a variety of places including cutter and as far away as a couple hundred miles i'm told to conduct precision strikes from all over the planet on targets of isis. but all in all, the u.s. and our allies have taken about 25,000 isis fighters off the battlefield, killed more than 120 key isis leaders since the beginning of this conflict and recent reports indicate that the coalition allied forces kill about an isis leader every three days on average, one every three days. last week coalition air strikes killed the isis deputy minister of war and isil military commander up here in mosul. we haven't done it by ourselves. we've done this with a lot of partners. as i said earlier 60 in all. our military folks have built an antiisis coalition that consists of 60 countries including some

ones you expect to hear, united kingdom, canada, france and germany. frankly that you would not expect to hear. the coalition also consists of some iraq and syria's neighbors, saudis, united arab, emirates, egypt just for starters. as a result of these partnerships, we've cut off its main sources of supplies, its enforcements and its funding. in recent weeks, anti-isis forces have surrounded places up here, just north of raqqa and cut off the route through turkey that isis previously used to smuggle oil, smuggle money and to move fighters. and as of june 29, less than a month ago, maybe a couple of weeks ago, about 300 air strikes against the islamic states oil networks in iraq and syria conducked over the last two

years -- conducted over the last two years have cut the terrorist group's oil revenue by at least half. it's estimated that isis now collects $50 million each month, down from being something like $30 million and $42 million in each month at its peak. cash reserves held by isis have also been hit hard. over the past year coalition air strikes have destroyed between $500 million and $800 million in isis funds in cold cash. our partnership has helped to keep isis from getting reinforcement from outside of iraq and syria. listen to this. the flow of foreign recruits have dramatically reduced two years ago, 2,000 a month if around the world coming into this area right here, 2,000 a month to be part of the isis team. and that's down the last month to 200, from 2,000 to 200 over the course of the last year. and the u.s. about a year or so ago we had ten americans per month leaving the u.s. to join the isis folks here.

ten a month. last month about one. one per month. and this is happening because people around the world and certainly people in the u.s. are learning the truth about isis. they don't want any part of it. they don't want any part of it. in cyber space over 125,000 pro-isis twitter handles have been taken off line. for every pro-isis twitter handle, there are now six anti-isis handles challenging isis and criticizing its action, a real game changer. at home the fbi is cracking down on recruits as well. the past two years the f.b.i. has arrested nearly a hundred individuals on isis-related charges. now, just because we've made progress, i think clear progress on these fronts, it does not mean there's not more work to do. there is. and there's a lot more that needs to be done. it's not going to all be done by us. it's a shared partnership and the u.s. helps in a the low of ways but this is not our responsibility alone.

and the recent isis-related attacks in turkey, iraq, saudi arabia and bag la desh show that -- bag la desh shows that isis still has to moiblize its forces on soft targets. last month serves as a reminder that young americans are susceptible to the twisted propaganda of isis. in november november the governmental affairs committee, we now encounter expert peter berg and told the committee every american who has been killed by a jihadi terrorist in this country since 9/11 has been killed by a citizen resident. every person killed by a jihadi terrorist in this country since 9/1 has been killed by an american citizen or legal resident. think about it. the threat doesn't come from syrian refugees or those who travel here as tourists or visa waiver programs. the greatest threat to our country comes from within, from

american citizens and from legal residents. when these young americans carry out attacks and isis much like the orlando killer appears to have done, they help to project the image that isis is an all powerful and ever present. we need to did a better job of counter-isis here in the u.s. the results are beginning to show otherwise. we need to make sure that the truth is told about isis and all -- beginning to absorb abroad. they're not heroes. they are oppressors of muslims and killers of muslims. they imprison and enslave women. they're fraught protectors of islam. as we help the saudi arabian world free its self -- as we help the sunni abe ran world -- arab world free itself from isis, we also ensure the truth

about isis gets out in order to undermine isis recruitment propaganda. congress can strengthen our ability by empowering the department of homeland security to build partnerships here at home. the senate homeland security committee passed legislation that i had worked on and others along with me that empowers the department of homeland security to build partnerships with the muslim community here and with faith-filled leaders, groups and other nonprofits. and these partners will help develop local solutions for stopping the recruitment of young americans. let me say in conclusion the battle to defeat isis is far from over, but i think we're on the right track. and we need to make it clear every day that isis is not the winning team they present themselves to be. they might have been to years ago -- two years ago, maybe even a year ago but not today. in fact, they're well on their way to becoming a losing team and if we keep working hard and pulling together in the same direction with our coalition partners, they will be a losing team. all of us, democrats and

republicans, have a role to play in making clear to all americans, especially those who are susceptible to isis. i hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will keep that in mind as we go forward. i hope we can also work together without the partnership of this election cycle to come up with constructive ways to help enhance the ability of this administration and our military. our military men and women to join our other 60 or so partners, nations, to finally defeat isis. with that, mr. president, i want to -- i look around the floor. i think we have one of my colleagues maybe from oklahoma who's poised to address this. i would yield to him. thank you very much.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, this has been a week really dealing with law and national security issues. security here in our country, security around the world. it's a moment that we turn around and look at what's happening internationally because we think about isis and we think about terrorism being confined to syria and to iraq and we face it here and we lose track that there are countries around the world that are dealing with this threat as well. so what do we do about this? where does it go from here? let me just recount the past couple of days. just wednesday two suicide bombers carried out an attack in yemen. on tuesday an indonesian suicide bomber believed to be a supporter of the islamic state attacked a city there killing himself and wounding a police officer and other security. on monday there were three separate attacks in saudi

arabia. on sunday there was a massive bomb carried out in baghdad that killed over 250 people, one bomb. later that same day there was another one also in iraq that killed five. on friday of last week in bangladesh, our nation watched in horror as gunmen stormed a restaurant in the diplomatic zone in bangladesh killed twenl, took the long -- 20, took the long-term hostages pledging their allegiance to isis. we forget, though, something else that happened on friday because those happened around the world. but on friday of last week, many people may not know that the f.b.i. picked up a man named mohammad jaloh in virginia. he was plotting to carry out a fort hood-style attack. he's a virginia national guardsman that purchased weapons, self-radicalized,

watching anwar al-awlaki's videos, pledged to isis and he planned to carry out a large-scale attack in virginia. the f.b.i. learned about it, intercepted him before he could actually carry out his attack. it's a week about national security. there's a lot going on around the world and a lot of threats that we face. this week has also included the security issue of the united states dealing with drug policy. behind the scenes in the senate there's a long-term argument that's happening right now about whether we're going to have a drug war or whether we're going to have a political war. we have a bill that deals with opioids, trying to help local law enforcement be able to engage on this opioid conference. but our democratic colleagues have held that bill up and won't allow it to be able to move through the conference process. and what we should deal with the fast moving opioid crisis we're actually dealing with the gridlock in the senate. this is a bill that already overwhelming passed in a

bipartisan method when it came through originally. it's only been strengthened since that time and now goes to conference and we want to be able to finish the conference report out and be able to continue to fight the drug war here in the united states. but instead we can't fight the drug war because of the political war going on behind the scenes. this is a national security issue. it's a national security issue and this week we dealt with immigration policy and what should be the simplest, most baseline area of immigration. should individuals that have been convicted of a felony, even a violent felony, should they be deported out of the united states if they're here illegal illegally? the argument from the other side of the aisle is we should not force communities to deport individuals that have been convicted of violent felonies. this week a year ago, july 1 specifically of 2015, a young lady named kate steinle was

walking down a pier in san francisco with her dad. a gentleman walked up to her with a gun and shot and killed her on the pier. no connection, no altercation, just walked up and shot her. this man who was in the country illegally had already been convicted before of seven felonies and had been deported five times. the san francisco police department, though, was forced to release him and did not give him to the federal authorities because san francisco is a sanctuary city. they believe that even if you've been convicted of violent felonies before if you're in the united states illegally, you should not be turned over to federal authorities. this body had a debate on that. this body's debate was do we agree that there should be places in the united states where violent multicount felons

should be kept and protected in communities here even though they're here illegally? republicans overwhelmingly voted that if you're a sanctuary city, you should lose some of your federal support. there should be an incentive to say if someone it in your community that is a violent felon, these are rapists, these are individuals who have been convicted of domestic violence, these are individuals who have been convicted of d.u.i., not every person in the country that's here illegally is a violent felon, about you for those that are, can't we at least find the common ground to say those individuals should be convicted and deported? this body apparently doesn't believe that. what should have been the most baseline argument about our domestic security and our national security can't get through this body because we can't agree on the most simple things. it's not all immigration policy.

this is just should you deport people convicted of a violent felony. and should there be communities in the country where violent felons are protected and kept in the united states even if they're here illegally. if we can't agree on that simple policy, what in the world are we going to agree on on any immigration policy? it's been a week about national security, with the threat of isis and the movement of terrorism around the world, the gridlock here dealing with basic immigration policy and national security, basic drug policy and dealing with an opioid conference. it's also been a week dealing with national security in a very unusual way. it can be spun politically, but it is really a national security issue. the director of the f.b.i. completed an investigation over our holiday weekend, interviewed former secretary of state clinton on the saturday, 4th of july weekend, and then came

out and said there's lots of evidence of breaking the rules, that there's a lost evidence of being sloppy and careless. there is a lot of evidence of what he called "extremely careless handling of sensitive, highly classified information," but would not recommend a prosecution. now why do i bring this up in a national security conversation? because it does connect to our national security. it is not just a political issue. the first calls that i received after that statement came out from director comey were from people that have classified clearance. they work in the intelligence community, they work in our united states military, they work on our military installations, they're contractors. they've gone through the extensive process of getting clearance. those individuals started contacting me and with one statement to say: that is, if i would have done scwheact of

state did -- that is, take classified information out of a government computer, move it to my home computer, store it at home, i would have been fired and i would have lost my security clear afnlts i had an stlaid contacted me that worked at one of my military installations that recounted to me a story of just last year someone that worked at that particular installation had brought their phone into work and had plugged it into the government computer so they could listen to music. that person was roundly fired because it put secure information at risk. this is a national security issue. it's the issue of what is the standard for how we're going to protect our nation's secrets? and is there a standard anymore? in a day with wh we face threats from around the world, in a day when we face threats from all over different regions and from americans even here that are being self-radicalized, we should at least have a standard that classified information means classified information.

and for any individual, regardless of their last name, they would be held to account. no one in america is above the law, at least that's what we used to say. the challenge that we face now as a nation, with all the threats, with all the you shalls that we -- with all the issues that we fairks will we just argue about political things here and will political people get special favors or will we take seriously the national security threats that we really face? from terrorism abroad, from terrorists who are planning attacks hear in the united states, from the opioid and heroin crisis that we face to the immigration crisis that we face, will we take these things seriously? and i would call this body out to say, we cannot continue to just do politics here and not work towards resolution on the

things that matter to the american people in the most basic things that we face. this is a time we should continue to do the right thing. the american people need to not only see their government working, they need to know that their government is actually doing something to protect the nation. our borders, the drug wars, our national secrets and our security dealing with radical islamic terrorism from around the world -- let's confront these issues, not just debate them. let's deal with them and let's resolve them, and let's remind the american people that we can get things done to fulfill our basic constitutional responsibility and that we can carry out the law regardless of what a person's last name is. with that, mr. president, i yield back. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: let me pick up where the distinguished senator from oklahoma ended. this senate and the house are capable of doing some awfully

good bipartisan work that helps the american people, and we do a lot of it. the senator from louisiana, the presiding officer today, has been working with the senator from connecticut, a democrat. they have different political persuasions. they've got us very close to passing a very important mental health bill in the united states, one n.a.s.ed the house -- one that passed the house yesterday. they worked hard on that. i'd like to be able to get it done next week. if not, we should be able to get it done in september. i went to the national education association annual convention where there were 10,000 teachers from all over the kufnlt and they gave the friend of the n.e.a. award from senator murray of washington state and to me. 30 years ago when i was governor of tennessee, i would have gotten the public enemy of the n.e.a. award. but what they liked and what teachers and governors and chief

state school officers and parents liked is that last year we came together and fixed no child left behind and stopped washington from telling schools so much about what to do and resthoord responsibility -- restored that responsibility where it ought to be to teachers and to parents and to governors and to legislators, and we've been thanked for that because iting affects 50 million children and 3.5 million teachers in 100,000 tub schools. we did -- public schools. we did our job. mental health, there's no child left behind. we're working on something called 21st century cures. the house of representatives has passed it. again, the senator from louisiana has been working on an important part of it, having to do with electronic medical records, as an example. but this has the opportunity of being by far the most important legislation we pass this year, and we'll pass it because it's part of speaker ryan's agenda.

the majority leader, senator mcconnell, wants to pass it. the president of the united states is interested in it because of his focus on medicine. there's funding for the brain initiative there which has to do with alzheimer's. these breath taking discoveries that we're on the verge of in america. it would affect millions of people. research for that and then moving them through the regulatory and investment process and into the medicine cabinets. cabinets i saw a forbes poll the other day that said that 82% of the american people would like congress do more on biomedical research. they agree on that. we are doing that. there are three things. fixing no child behind, mental health, 21st century cures. and then we get to opioids and zika. now, what's happened here? this reminds me of the hatfields and mccoys in the mountains of kentucky and tennessee.

they fought so long, they forgot what they were fighting for. they just killed each other because that's what their grandfathers did. we have two issues here that are of importance to the american people and we're on the verge of a significant step. the first is zika. the zika virus is terrifying young women in our country. they're postponing their pregnancies. they're afraid to have babies. they're afraid they will be born in a deformed way because we find that if you have the zika virus, some women have babies who have deformities when they're born p. they are there will be a -- there will be a vaq sign for this by -- there will be a vaccine for this by 2018, perhaps. more money nor the national institutes of health to speed that along. but between now and then, we need to take every step we need to take to help keep -- to keep the zika virus from infecting as

many people as we can. this is a very simple disease. it's carried by a mosquito, and if a mosquito bites you, you get the zika virus. and for many people, it makes no difference. but for pregnant women, it could be a problem. so it is july, and the mosquitoes are out, and i.t. time to e-- and it's rhyme to eradicate -- and it's time to rerad indicate the mosquitoes. we passed $1.1 billion here for money for zika. $is.1 billion -- $1.1 billion, and because of a small provision which the house of representatives put in that has to do with who is a medicaid provider in puerto rico, there are many medicaid providers in puerto rico who can go about this business in july and august and september to deal with trying to keep the mosquitoes away, our friends ogee the other side of the aisle -- on the

other side of the aisle won't let us pass the bill. let us stop and think about this. this is hatfields and mccoys at its worst. this is not the same spirit we had fixing no child behind. it is not the same spirit we have working with the president and speaker ryan and senator mcconnell on 21st century cures. it's not the same spirit that senator murphy and senator cassidy have shown in taking great differences over mental health and putting them in a way that we'll get some advances on that this year. there is no excuse whatever for delaying spending $1.1 billion to help pregnant women and other families avoid the zika virus this summer. we don't need mosquito control in the winter. we need it in the summer, and we need to pass it now before we leave and go away on our recess and come back in september. and there may be a provision in the bill that some of us would have written a different way. maybe some of us would like some

more money. but the provision that's offensive to some people is a very small provision. there are medicaid providers all over puerto rico who can deal with this part of the money. and there is no excuse for not approving the $1.1 billion that we're ready to spend for zika, period. and it's wrong for the democrats to block that. it's as wrong as it can be, and it is not in the right spirit. i think i have a reputation here for trying to get results, and i would +saeu to my friends on the other side of the aisle, please stop and think about this. this is the hatfields and the mccoys example that the american people really don't like and we're on the verge of doing something that would help a lot of americans, especially young women. and we ought to do it. we ought to do it today or next week, and we surely should not go home without having done it. and then the other thing we're on the verge of doing well is

helping deal with opioids. and, again, we're in a hatfields and mccoys situation parntsly. i hope we avoid it, but we may be. we've talked a lot about the opioids abuse. i know what happens in tennessee. opioids overdose is killing more people every year than car wrecks or gunshots. car wrecks or gunshots. i had a round table in knoxville several months ago. it was filled with people -- judges, parents, doctors, hospital managers. everybody is overwhelmed with this. they want some help in doing it. we can't fix it from here, but we can support those on the front line. we're doing it, we're making some changes. we've come back to secretary burwell. the president said, change the provision on the pain management survey that hospitals are telling us encourage doctors to overprescribe opioids. wcialtion at first they didn't

-- wrl, at first they didn't listen, but to the president's credit and secretary burwell's credit, they listening and they did it at the urging of congress. they've increased the level of prescriptions that treatment doctors can prescribe. that was something that senator paul, senator markey, democrats and republicans in the house wanted to dovment we might do more of it, but that was the deal. and then we came up with a partisan opioid bill in the senate and in the house. it has contributions from half the democrats, many of the republicans, and in the house it passed 400-1 over there. over here it was 94-1 -- pardon me, it was 400-5 in the house. 90-1 here. it has more than 200 groups across the country that says opioid abuse is an re epidemic d

a crisis. so let's fix it. so we have a substantial step to fix it. yesterday we approved a merger of what the house did and the senate did and both will come to the house and next week to the senate for approval. you would think that something that had passed the senate 94-1 when it comes back for approval would pass again 94-1. you would think that something as urgent as dealing with opioid drug abuse, an epidemic, as i said again, killing more people every year in my state than gunshots, killing more people every year in my state than car wrecks, you'd think we'd want to do something about it, particularly what we worked hard and we have a very good package. 200 of the advocacy groups in this country who work on opioid abuse like what we've done. what's the problem? well, our friends on the other side say, you need to fund it. we are funding it!

and they helped fund it. over the last three years -- count the last two congresses for the money is already appropriated -- in other words, it's there to spend -- count the amount of money that the senate appropriations committee has approved. we've increased funding for opioids already by542%. for those wor -- working on their math, that's five times more than we were doing two and a half years ago. and then the house of representatives has come along today and said we want to go even further than that. that's in the regular appropriations process. that's how we do our business here. for example, last year, as i mentioned, we fixed no child left behind. the president called it a christmas miracle. everybody's happy about it. it doesn't spend a penny. it reformed the education law. we spend the money in the