mr. merkley: it is bogus? mr.tester: yeah, it's worse than nothing, at least if you had nothing, you'd no what you have. mr. merkley: so thi thrtion a second -- so there is a second option put in, which is the quick response quod. now you have to have a smartphone that can take a picture of that, take to you a web site to get information, information by the way written by the very company that controls the prowrd a looking at. it is not some third party. i picture that as taking just as much time and complexity and impossibility for the ordinary person than the 1-800 number. this requires now -- the q.r. code requires, first, that you actually have a data plan to be able to get to a web site. you have a smartphone instead of an ordinary cell phone and furthermore it reveals information about yourself when you go to that web site. so you're giving up your privacy. so is the q.r. code option being discussed also a sham? mr. tester: absolutely. it's -- it's just as bogus as the 800 number, quite frankly, if not more,

mr. merkley: mr. president, i'm rising today to address a very important issue, which is the right of american citizens to know what is in their food. now, i wouldn't be talking about this topic of genetically modified ingredients in food. i will be pointing out there are some genetic modifications that are largely considered to have been beneficial and others that are largely considered to be causing some significant challenges. in both cases, there are signs to bring to bear around the benefits and there are signs to bring to bear around the disadvantages. ultimately, i will conclude with a little preface here that this is not a debate about the scientific pros and cons. there is information on both sides, different aspects. what it is a debate is about whether our federal government wants to be the large overbearing presence in the lives of americans and tell them what to think or whether we believe in our citizens' ability to use their own minds and make their own decisions and to be able to do th

mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, i rise to address the motion that is on the floor right now, and the motion that is on the floor is a version -- it is a motion to adopt an amendment that is essentially a new version of the monsanto dark act. now, dark is an acronym. it stands for deny americans' right to know. so this is, by the way, an amendment that has not been seen in any committee in the senate ever. now we heard a lot of discussion about how we were going to have process in this chamber where things would be in the ordinary fashion, go through committee and be digested and be analyzed. but instead this amendment to an underlying bill that has been ping-ponging back and forth between the house and the senate, this has never been heard in committee. it's just been crafted over the last few hours. and here we are with a fundamental issue of citizens' right to know, and the majority leader of this chamber has decided to bypass any ordinary consideration to jam this through on behalf of monsanto. now wha

mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: this debate over the monsanto dark act which gives americans the right to know centers around two basic propositions. the first proposition is that it would be chaotic to have 50 states with 50 different labeling standards. how could a food company possibly always get the right label to the right store if there are 50 different state standards? now, this is not a problem we actually have yet because we have no states that have adopted a standard for g.e. labeling. we have one state -- i should say no states that have implemented it. one state that has adopted a standard, and that won't be implemented until july. so we're far away from having any issue over conflicting standards. but i acknowledge the basic point. this makes sense. it makes sense that you don't want to have a world in which every state has a different approach. in this state, you do x., y., z. in this state, you do a., b., c. what the exemptions are differ, the format differs and so forth. so let's just conce

mr. merkley: the american citizen wants the right to know what's in their food.they want to know how many calories. they want to know what the middles are and what the vitamins are and what the ingredients are. it's a simple standard because it's so important to an individual what you're putting in your mouth, what you're putting on the table for your family and your children. now, this is a principle that we have honored time and time again on our packages. we proceed to put on our package whether fish is farm raised or wild caught because citizens wanted to know. it makes a difference to them. it's their choice. it's their judgment. we put on our packages whether juice is from concentrate or juice is fresh because citizens wanted to know. it's important to them. it's their right to know. we put the list of ingredients on the package in a simple format not so that someone can spend an hour trying to research what's in it. no, we have a simple one-second test. you pick up the food off the counter. you turn it over. you look at the list of ingredients and you say

mr. merkley: i'll be rising periodically to address issues affecting americans across this country and that this chamber should be addressing. this week i'm using my speech to highlight the labeling of genetically modified foods. and this is truly a we the people versus the titans, we the titans battle because citizens routinely poll very high numbers about their desire to know what's in their food and like the idea of being alerted when their food contains genetically modified organize eufrpls or -- organisms or gmos but that's not necessarily the consequence as something goes through a legislative process, often the we the people common sense vision is lost in favor of pressures applied by powerful industries. and we're in the middle of a debate like that right now. and so that's why i thought it appropriate to rise at this moment to address this. this is really a debate about whether you believe that in a democracy, citizens have a right to know or whether that right to know is going to be taken away from them. and i guess it goes to whether you feel that citizens have the minds that the

mr. moran: thank you, dr. senator merkley. senator merkley: i want to turn to the senate conversation about opioids and opioid addiction and overdose that is are occurring. the f.d.a. has come under criticism for not always using advisory panel on opioids with so hydroapproved back in 2013. the f.d.a. did have an advisory panel, it recommended 12-2 against approval. but f.d.a. approved it anyway. the following year the f.d.a. approved two additional opioids but decided not to convene an advisory panel. what was the reason -- f.d.a. did not want to hear about the concerns from the medical professionals? why would on such an important issue with so many addiction related issues, why would the f.d.a. have wanted to trash their advisory panel system? dr. califf: there is no interest in the f.d.a. about trashing the advisory panel system. as you know, we have recently taken a very deep look at opioids. it's right people are upset. i know you are dealing with it today on the senate floor. it is a national epidemic. more people dying

merkley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and congratulations, dr. califf. there's plenty of fascinating and really important issues that the fda deals with. and the one i wanted to start off with is related to the tobacco deeming regulation. that regulation has now been omb since october 2015. the basic rules are -- not supposed to be more than 90 days. as of today we're at 134 and counting. it has been a mystery year after year after year that this regulation haents besn't been f. while essentially we have been not acting, the addiction rate for e-cigarettes has increase d dramatically. they are targeted at kids with all kinds of flavors, double dutch chocolate. you name it, you can find it. to have a product targeted at children that's -- that effective is troublesome since it means likelihood of a likelihood of nicotine addiction with health consequences and certainly a lot of expenses for our healthcare system as well. what's going on? is this ever going to ing ting from omb. >> it will emerge. i'm a cardiologiscardiologist. had a busy business. i have

merkley? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary. we're well along in the journey now. an eight-year journey serving president obama. i believe you are the only member of the cabinet who has been there from the starting line and is still with us. i assume planning to go across the finish line. i want to thank you for these eight years of service. >> thank you. >> and as you indicated by the chairman, i know you wrote a lot on so many issues. certainly in your introduction, you mentioned food, water and shelter. that is everything from snap to water purification programs to housing programs. it really reflects on the essential functions that your department has for millions and millions of americans. i just wanted to note, your march 7th speech where you talked about -- called upon congress to pass mandatory gmo labeling. i know you and i have a very different definition of what that would look like. but i stand with you shoulder to shoulder in that cause of mandatory labeling. i wanted to turn to the housing component. one of the iss

mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: i also ask that my intern be conveyed the privileges of the floor for the balance of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. today i rise to address the responsibility of this senate and its advice and consent role under the constitution. of course the president's duty is to nominate a justice when a vacancy exists for a justice, and that responsibility is very clearly written into our constitution, and the constitution also very clearly conveys the senate's role in providing advice and consent. this was the vision of our founding document, and actually our founding fathers wrestled with exactly how to best construct this nomination and confirmation process. they knew that there had to be a way to appoint judges in the judiciary and certainly ambassadors and directors and executive branch, but how to go about that. some argued in those early efforts to craft the constitution that t