Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while the Senator from Missouri is still on the floor, I noted what my friend said about his being the first member of his family to get a college degree. The Leahys came to Vermont in 1850. When my grandfather--who was a stone carver--died, my father was a teenager, and he had to go to work. I became the first Leahy to get a college degree, and my sister was the second one. I have to think what the path might have been otherwise. There is one thing we all have to agree on: We have to make it easier for college to be affordable, with all kinds of plans and ideas. The kids have to be able to go to college. I was able to do that. I was able to go on to graduate school. It is so important to be able to compete today. I was touched by what my friend said, and I appreciate it. Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Bill Mr. President, we have kind of a good news/bad news situation today. The good news is that Congress is taking a step forward on how to respond to opioid addiction. By advancing the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA, we are leaving behind decades-old misconceptions about how to confront addiction. For too long, Congress relied on punitive measures that only served to push addicts further underground and away from recovery. This legislation treats opioid addiction as an illness. It combats it as we would any other public health issue, through a commitment to evidence- based treatment and recovery programs. But the bad news is our commitment falls short. The conference report promises critical programming, but then it does not pay the bill. It does not provide the resources necessary to support the programming. So we should know what we have here. We have a first step--an important first step but barely a first step. If we make a mistake and say: OK, we have done our job, then we have failed the countless communities across the country grappling with addiction. We are doing very little to stem this epidemic. I am afraid my friends, the Republicans, have repeatedly blocked efforts to fund the programs authorized by CARA. When the legislation was first considered on the Senate floor, Republicans opposed Senator Shaheen's amendment that would have provided $600 million in new funding of emergency supplemental appropriations, which is actually a modest amount considering what is needed in this country. Then we have the appropriations process in committee this year. Emergency funds to fight this addiction epidemic were denied. Senate Republicans kept assuring us that there was going to be a time and a place to include real funding. Well, last week's conference provided such an opportunity. I, along with other Democratic conferees, identified commonsense and bipartisan offsets that would enable us to dedicate almost $1 billion in new resources to put the programs in CARA to work. We told our Republican counterparts we could not sign the conference report unless it included meaningful funding, but the Republicans voted against funding CARA so I did not sign the report. They also made a new promise. At the conference meeting, the Republicans promised to include $525 million in new funding to combat addiction through the appropriations process. I have to note that I hope Americans demand that Congress keep this promise and provide meaningful funding for CARA--not with poison pill offsets that would kill it but with real promises. I will soon again join with Senators Murray, Wyden, and Shaheen to introduce legislation to provide $920 million to fund CARA. It could be fully paid for. It could be paid for with offsets that received overwhelming bipartisan support. If we are really serious about combatting the opioid epidemic, there is no sense not to pass this, and there is no sense not to put our money where our mouths are, because, if we fund it, it can make an important difference. We can expand prevention efforts, expand access to treatment and recovery services, and authorize the critical public health programs to create and expand Medication Assisted Treatment, MAT, programs. If CARA were funded, it could make an important difference in communities across the country. The bill lays the groundwork for expanding prevention efforts and access to treatment and recovery services. It removes arbitrary restrictions on prescribing Medication Assisted Treatment, which will allow nurse practitioners and physician assistants in Vermont to treat addiction just as they treat other illnesses. It authorizes a critical public health program I helped create to expand MAT programs. Some Vermonters tell me they are struggling with addiction and they have had to wait nearly 1 year to receive treatment. At the Chittenden Clinic in South Burlington, VT, several have died while waiting. Because we wouldn't fund it, several died. This story is not unique. The bill also includes my provision to support our rural communities by increasing access to the overdose reversal drug naloxone. Rural locations have the highest death rates in the country from opioid poisoning, and getting this drug into more hands will save lives. The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act also recognizes that the overprescription of opioids is largely responsible for this epidemic, and the legislation includes a provision I strongly support to encourage the National Institutes of Health to intensify research on the effectiveness of opioids in treating chronic pain and to encourage the development of opioid-alternatives to manage chronic pain. Two weeks ago, on a beautiful Vermont evening, a standing-room only crowd filled a conference room at the Green Mountain Technical and Career Center for a community meeting on opioid abuse. The event was organized by Lamoille County Sheriff Roger Marcoux. He is a former DEA agent who has seen the toll of heroin and opioid abuse and what it has done in the rural regions of my State. Dr. Betsy Perez, a panelist and longtime practitioner at nearby Copley Hospital, surprised many in the crowd when she addressed the opioid issue from a personal rather than from a medical perspective. This doctor told the heart-wrenching story of her addicted daughter's journey. Despite many efforts at treatment, her daughter repeatedly relapsed, eventually winding up homeless on the streets of Burlington. Her daughter is now 2 years into recovery and recently became a mother. The cost of her intensive residential treatment was high. It drained the doctor's retirement savings. But she would have it no other way. I wonder how much better off they might have been if we had prevention clinics in place. I held a hearing in St. Albans, VT--again, standing room only. I remember a noted pediatrician who spoke about being with parents whom he did not identify. He said they were well off. He was telling them about the dangers of opioids and how teenagers can get addicted. They were shocked to hear this. They said: Thank you for telling us about this. We will watch out for our daughter. He said: I have been treating your daughter for 2 years. She is an addict. You could hear a pin drop in that room. But she was getting treatment, and many are not so fortunate. Each day, throughout our country, 129 people die from drug overdoses. I suspect that almost every Vermonter knows someone who has been impacted by addiction. This is not the future we want for our children, our grandchildren, our communities. In Vermont, we know what it takes to get ahead of addiction. While I appreciate the attention Congress has given this issue, CARA will only work for Vermont and States across the country if Congress is willing to provide the funding that is necessary to fight this epidemic. I was proud to help usher CARA through the Senate. I will support it today. But I am greatly disappointed that Congress has so far refused to treat this public health crisis as seriously as it did the swine flu or Ebola. I would urge all Senators: Don't go just to formal meetings. Just stand outside your local grocery stores, as my wife, a registered nurse, and I often do. Just talk with people. Walk down the street, and talk with people. You are going to find what Vermonters know all too well: Lives are at stake here, and time is of the essence. It is time for Congress to act like it and fully fund CARA. I know when Marcelle and I go home, we want to say that we are helping because we know some of these families personally. In a little State of only 600,000 people, you tend to know a lot of people. I have seen some of the finest families in our State devastated by this. I am sure it is the same in the Presiding Officer's State and every other State in this country. We have to represent the people from our States and help. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate confirmed Dr. Carla Hayden to be the 14th Librarian of Congress. This is an historic moment, as Dr. Hayden becomes the first woman and the first African American to serve in this important capacity. I congratulate Dr. Hayden and look forward to working with her to help the Library of Congress continue building its legacy as a great American institution. As she assumes her new office, Dr. Hayden will be able to draw on her years of experience leading the Enoch Pratt Free Library in Baltimore. Through her leadership, the library has become more accessible to members of the community through expanded after school programs and career mentoring. As she powerfully testified during her confirmation hearing before the Rules Committee, the Enoch Pratt Free Library also served as a safe haven last summer when the city of Baltimore experienced painful unrest following the death of Freddie Gray. Her leadership has shown the transformative power of libraries, and I am optimistic that she will use that knowledge and expertise at the Library of Congress to the benefit of all Americans. Since I received my first library card at the Kellogg-Hubbard Library in Montpelier, VT, I have loved libraries. A library is a place where everyone fits in and the possibilities are limitless. The Library of Congress occupies a special place within our country. It is our Nation's treasured repository for millions of books, photos, movies, oral histories, and music. But it should also lead by example, working to ensure that libraries keep their important place in our society and help Americans of all ages and backgrounds access information in engaging ways. Dr. Hayden faces numerous challenges as she begins her tenure as Librarian of Congress. She must find ways to improve the Library's efforts to digitize its materials and preserve digital content. And she must find ways to improve the public's access to the Library's incredible collection through effective and responsible changes. I am committed to helping her achieve those goals. I also encourage Dr. Hayden to work with me to promote access to government-funded research and information prepared by the Congressional Research Service, CRS. I have introduced bipartisan legislation to make CRS reports available online while respecting the important advisory role that CRS provides to Congress. The status quo-- where the public can only access these reports by paying hefty subscription fees to third parties--is bad policy, and I look forward to working with Dr. Hayden to find solutions to make this meaningful resource available more broadly to schools and individual citizens. The Library also needs Congress's assistance to reauthorize its film and sound recording preservation programs, which preserve important materials that would otherwise disappear or be destroyed through the passage of time. I have introduced bipartisan legislation to reauthorize these programs that I hope members of the Rules Committee and the Congress will strongly support. The Library's work on digitization and preservation can and should be a model for the world. Finally, during her confirmation hearing and in follow-up questions asked of Dr. Hayden, much attention has been paid to the relationship between the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office, which has long been housed within the Library. Diverse stakeholders have called to modernize the functioning of the Copyright Office, to ensure that it, much like the Library, can best serve the public in the digital age. I hope that Dr. Hayden will serve as a helpful collaborator as I and other Members of Congress consider how to accomplish that goal. Among the most pressing issues is how best the Library's and Copyright Office's information technology, IT, systems can be improved to address widely recognized shortcomings. As Dr. Hayden takes office, I encourage her to carefully consider how to solve these problems, knowing that the two entities' IT needs may be vastly different and a solution that works for the Library's collection management may be ill-suited for the particular issues facing the Copyright Office. It is far more important that these IT issues be resolved correctly, particularly in light of the fast-changing nature of technology, than that they be resolved quickly. Dr. Hayden will serve as the Librarian for a 10-year term, and I am optimistic that she can accomplish great things during that time. I look forward to working together with her and once again congratulate her on this historic accomplishment.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Vermont environmental advocate James Ehlers has won the prestigious 2016 Zetterstrom Environmental Award, an honor presented annually by Green Mountain Power Company. I know James well from having worked for most of the last two decades to protect and restore Lake Champlain. I have often found myself as the focus of his unrelenting vision to achieve a ``swimmable, fishable, drinkable'' Lake Champlain, and I agree with that vision. Since his earliest days with Lake Champlain International, LCI, James has made it his mission to restore Lake Champlain fisheries. In recent years, James has broadened his work and the mission of LCI to also address many known and suspected lake pollutants, to prevent the spread of invasive species, and to tackle many other issues affecting the our beloved Lake, which is also known as the jewel of New England. Named for the famed osprey advocate, Meeri Zetterstrom, the GMP- Zetterstrom Environmental Award is presented annually to one person, business, group, or nonprofit to honor a significant contribution to Vermont's environment. It is accompanied by a $2,500 donation to the winner's environmental cause. For James, of course, that is the Lake Champlain ecosystem. The hard work that makes this award so well-earned by Mr. Ehlers is detailed in an article published this month in The St. Albans Messenger. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday I made a statement about the situation in Honduras, where the March 3 assassination of environmental activist Berta Caceres remains under investigation. I also mentioned the brutal killing last week of Lesbia Janeth Urquia. In that statement, I said that Ms. Urquia was a member of the organization COPINH, which stands for the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras. According to information I received today, she was not a member of COPINH. However, it is my understanding that she had been active with other supporters of COPINH in opposing the construction of a hydroelectric project along the Chinacla River. Whether Ms. Urquia's environmental activism was related to her death is a question that remains unresolved. Three suspects in the case were arrested in the past 24 hours, one of whom is reportedly her brother- in-law. According to press reports, the murder of Ms. Urquia may have been the result of a family dispute over inheritance, but the investigation is only in an early stage. This case reminds us, again, of the unacceptable amount of violence in Honduras and the history of impunity in that country. This is a pervasive problem in each of the Northern Triangle countries, as well as Mexico. Homicides rarely result in conviction or punishment, unless there is international attention. Corruption is pervasive within the police and other public and private institutions. The courts are not as immune from political pressure as they should be. These are problems that will take years to effectively address, as they require, among other things, building professional, accountable police forces and ending the role of the military in civilian law enforcement, strengthening the Office of the Attorney General, and reinforcing the independence of the judiciary. It also requires strong support by governments of the rights of civil society and particularly journalists, human rights defenders, and social activists who peacefully protest government policies they disagree with. This support has been notably absent in the past, and it is fundamental to any democracy. The United States has a strong interest in helping Honduras and the other Central American countries address the culture of lawlessness that has engulfed them and in reversing the migration to the United States of desperate people fleeing violence. I welcome the assurances of top officials in those governments of the seriousness of their commitment to confront these challenges. I also know that what matters is performance. I supported the $750 million that Congress approved last year to implement the U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America and look forward to receiving the multiyear spend plan required by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, spelling out with sufficient detail and clarity the administration's plans for using those funds.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wanted to share with my friends in the Senate some news from across the pond. Sir Peter Westmacott, who served as British Ambassador to the United States from 2012 until January of this year, was recently bestowed the high honor of Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Michael and Saint George for his services to British diplomacy. In other words, Sir Peter is now a ``super knight.'' Sir Peter has served British diplomatic interests at home and abroad for decades. His commitment and dedication to peaceful cooperation in the international community is unparalleled. Sir Peter first came to Washington, DC, as Counsellor for Political and Public Affairs in Washington, a position he held from 1993 to 1996, after which he returned home to serve as Director for the Americas at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. From 2002 to 2006, Sir Peter Westmacott served as Her Majesty's Ambassador to Turkey. His experience and unwavering commitment to diplomacy were instrumental as he navigated difficult and tragic waters following the November 2003 terrorist attack on the British Embassy in Turkey. He also fostered diplomatic discussions surrounding Turkey's candidacy as a member of the European Union. Beginning in 2007, Sir Peter served as Her Majesty's ambassador to France, where he promoted diplomacy, trade, and investments between France and the U.K. During his time as Her Majesty's Ambassador to the United States, Sir Peter worked tirelessly to maintain and strengthen U.K.-U.S. relations and to promote diverse and inclusive cultures. His long career illustrates his deep belief in unity and that we, as nations, can accomplish more together than we could dream of achieving alone. Marcelle and I are lucky to count Peter Westmacott and his wife, Susie, among our friends and are proud of him for earning this prestigious honor. I wanted to share with the Senate the full citation from the Queen's 2016 Birthday Honours for Diplomatic Services: ``Peter Westmacott has successfully and relentlessly pursued British interests at the highest levels of international diplomacy, including over the last ten years through three important relationships for the UK--the USA, France and Turkey. He has used every aspect of modern diplomacy-- political, prosperity, soft power and leadership--to deliver high impact outcomes for the UK. In each of these most recent roles he has faced difficult challenges to deliver for the UK whether it be deepening the bilateral relationship at the highest levels or persuading partners to work with the UK on difficult issues. He has been one of the UK's leading and most accomplished British Ambassadors of his generation.'' I thank Peter and Susie for their many achievements and dedication to strengthening the special relationship between the United States and United Kingdom.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will pass the bipartisan Library of Congress Sound Recording and Film Preservation Programs Reauthorization Act of 2016, which authorizes two important cultural preservation programs through 2027. Senator Grassley and I worked together on this legislation to help ensure that the films and recordings that play vital roles in shaping and recording the American experience are preserved for future generations. Advances in digital technology have opened up new avenues for creativity, allowing Americans to engage in artistic expression in innovative ways. As we embrace these new developments, we must also ensure that the records of our past are preserved. Films and sound recordings created by previous generations tell us who we are, and who we were, as a society; yet the passage of time has taken its toll on these historical works, erasing artifacts of our shared history and culture. The legislation that will be passed today by the Senate continues Congress's long recognition of the importance of cultural preservation, reauthorizing both the National Film Preservation Program, which began in 1988, and the National Sound Recording Preservation Program, which began in 2000. These programs, operated within the Library of Congress, help preserve historical and cultural artifacts that would otherwise disappear or be destroyed through the passage of time. Through the preservation programs, the Library of Congress has created the National Film and National Recording Registries, to recognize the most essential artistic works our Nation has produced. This legislation also reauthorizes the federally chartered National Film and National Recording Preservation Foundations. These foundations play a critical role in preservation efforts by providing grants to a wide array of educational and nonprofit organizations to preserve films and sound recordings. To date, the National Film Preservation Foundation has given grants to more than 270 organizations in all 50 States. By reauthorizing these important programs, this legislation will allow the Library of Congress and the Foundations to continue their important work in preserving America's fading treasures, as well as providing grants that will help libraries, museums, and archives preserve these works and make them available for study and research. I look forward to prompt consideration of the bill by the House and to the President signing it into law.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it has been 4 months and 8 days since Berta Caceres, an internationally respected indigenous Honduran environmental activist, was shot and killed in her home. Ms. Caceres had led her Lenca community in a campaign over several years against the Agua Zarca hydroelectric project financed in part by a Honduran company, Desarrollos Energeticos, DESA, on the Gualcarque River, which the Lenca people consider to be sacred. Honduran police officers tampered with the crime scene, and they and some Honduran government officials sought early on to falsely depict the killing as a crime of passion. But that dishonest strategy failed, and five individuals were subsequently arrested, including a DESA employee and active duty and retired army officers, for which Honduran Attorney General Oscar Fernando Chinchilla and investigators provided by the U.S. Embassy deserve credit. It is widely believed, however, that the intellectual authors of that horrific crime remain at large. While the attorney general's investigation is continuing, as it should, I and others have repeatedly called on the Honduran Government to also support a thorough, independent, international investigation of the Caceres case under the auspices of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission. Given Honduras's history of impunity for such crimes and the public's understandable distrust of the justice system, it is imperative that such an inquiry be conducted expeditiously. Ms. Caceres' death was one of scores of killings in the past decade of environmental activists, journalists, human rights defenders, and other social activists in Honduras. Hardly anyone has been punished for any of those crimes. In fact, the rate of conviction for homicide in Honduras is less than 5 percent. If that were not bad enough, just 2 weeks after Ms. Caceres's death, Nelson Garcia, another indigenous environmental activist, was fatally shot in Rio Chiquito after helping dozens of residents move their belongings when government authorities evicted them from land they had occupied. And on July 6, 2016, Lesbia Janeth Urquia, also a member of the indigenous rights organization COPINH, Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras, which Ms. Caceres led, was found stabbed to death. Her body was left at a municipal garbage dump in the town of Marcala in the western department of La Paz. It is shocking that her death was reportedly one of four murders in a period of 5 days in that town alone, which tragically illustrates the appalling extent of lawlessness in Honduras today. No one has been arrested for Ms. Urquia's assassination, and it is too soon to assign a motive, but there are disturbing similarities with the Caceres case. In the first place, before conducting an investigation, the police speculated publicly, without citing any credible evidence, that the crime was the result of a robbery, a family dispute, or extortion. This is what we have come to expect of some members of the Honduran police. Beyond that, Ms. Urquia had reportedly been at the forefront of a community struggle against a privatized hydroelectric project along the Chinacla River in Marcalas, La Paz. Like Agua Zarca, the Chinacla project has the support of top Honduran Government officials and was being implemented without the consent of the local communities whose lives will be most disrupted by it. Last year the Congress, with my support, provided $750 million to help El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras address the poverty, violence, injustice, and other factors that contribute to the flood of unaccompanied minors to the United States. On June 29, 2016, the Senate Appropriations Committee, again with my support, approved another $650 million for these countries. A portion of these funds is for direct assistance for their central governments and is subject to the Secretary of State certifying that they have met certain conditions. In the case of Honduras, how that government resolves conflicts with local communities over the exploitation of natural resources, such as the Agua Zarca and Chinacla hydro projects and others like them, and its investigations of the killings of Berta Caceres, Nelson Garcia, Lesbia Urguia, and other activists will factor heavily in whether I will support the release of those funds. The government's efforts to protect civil society activists and journalists, who for years Honduran Government officials and law enforcement officers have treated as criminals and legitimate targets for threats and attacks, will also be a factor. I have followed events in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras since the 1980s. I have watched governments in those countries come and go. They have all shared a tolerance for corruption and impunity, and I regret to say that, despite this, they were supported by the United States. Top officials and their families have gotten rich, while the vast majority of the population is trapped in poverty and struggle to survive. During those years the United States spent billions of dollars on programs purportedly to raise living standards, reform the police, and improve governance. The results have been disappointing. While there are many explanations, I believe the lack of political will on the part of those governments and the willingness of successive U.S. administrations to ignore or excuse the corruption and abuses played a big part. We owe it to the people of those countries and to American taxpayers to not repeat those costly mistakes. Finally, it is important to note that the persecution and killings of environmental activists is a worldwide phenomenon, as documented by Global Witness in its June 2016 report ``On Dangerous Ground.'' More than three people were killed each week in 2015 defending their land, forests, and rivers against destructive industries. The report lists 185 killings in 16 countries--the highest annual death toll on record and more than double the number of journalists killed in the same period. In Brazil alone, 50 such activists died. Just last week, we learned of the assassination of Ms. Gloria Capitan, an environmental activist who opposed the construction and presence of coal stockpile facilities in Lucanin, Bataan province of the Philippines. So in this regard, Honduras is not unique, but its government is seeking substantial economic and security assistance from the United States. In order for us to justify that assistance, the Honduran Government needs to demonstrate that it has met the conditions in our law and is taking the necessary steps to bring those responsible for these crimes to justice.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleague from Michigan, the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Stabenow, in a colloquy regarding the scope of the products that could be labeled under the GMO labeling legislation. Does the Senator from Michigan believe that the definition of GMO included in this bill prohibits the labeling of highly refined products derived from GMO crops, including soybean oil made from GMO soybeans, high fructose corn syrup made from GMO corn, and sugar made from GMO sugar beets?

Mr. LEAHY. Does the Senator from Michigan also believe that the definition of GMO food included in this bill prohibits the labeling of ingredients from plants genetically modified through new and yet to be developed gene editing techniques in addition to the recombinant DNA editing technique mentioned in the bill?

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator from Michigan for joining me in this colloquy for the purpose of bringing greater clarity to the congressional intent regarding the definition of GMO products contained in this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the USDA general counsel's response letter dated July 1, 2016, be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois for what he said. As he knows, like many Vermonters, I consider myself a responsible gun owner, but I don't think it is responsible when people are allowed to come in and buy guns with no background checks, get whatever they want, and then make a profit selling them to gangs. I don't know how anybody, any lobby or any Member of Congress, can say they can support that. I thank the Senator from Illinois for what he said. He is absolutely right. Mr. President, it has been just 2 weeks since negotiators released what can only be called a farce of a proposal to require the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Less than a week after it was released--without any committee action, any testimony, no recorded feedback from either proponents or opponents--the Senate majority leader filed cloture on a privileged vehicle to fast-track this bill. Gone are the promises of regular order. Gone are the pledges of an open amendment process. Instead, the Senate will now consider whether to preempt carefully considered, long-debated State laws that protect and enforce a consumer's right to know. Make no mistake: Vermont's first-in-the-Nation GE labeling law is what is under attack here. Vermont's carefully debated law is the threat that has driven millions of dollars in lobbying to the doors of the U.S. Senate. And the millions of dollars from lobbyists seem to have paid off because suddenly, even with all of the unsolved problems facing America--we don't have our appropriations bills done, we don't have money for Zika, and we can't do anything about the sale of high- powered weapons to gangs who then use them to shoot innocent people-- lobbyists can come in and say: Change all the rules. Ignore all of the precedence. Forget the pledges you have made. Let's just zip through this bill and get it done because we want it. No wonder this Congress is disfavored by the American people. This bill does not consider that 9 out of 10 consumers support a mandatory GE label on their food products. What this bill does not recognize is that 64 countries around the world mandate GE labeling. This bill does not benefit from a thorough, open, constructive debate, but it has apparently benefited from millions of lobbying dollars and campaign contributions. Consumers want a simple, easy to read label. Instead, this concoction of a so-called deal would offer them a complicated scavenger hunt. I was here in March when the Senate voted, convincingly, to reject the DARK Act. Well, what do we have today? We have a rebooted DARK Act that makes modest improvements, but falls far short of the disclosure that consumers demand and Vermonters have required. It does not have the disclosure that 9 out of 10 consumers say they want. We are listening to a handful of very well-financed lobbyists and campaign contributors, but we will not listen to 9 out of 10 of the American people. Once again, their objective is not to honor and empower consumers' right to know, but to derail State laws that do and to get by with as little consumer transparency as possible. In this shortened period of debate, I hope to create for the Record what the Agriculture Committee has not: the shortcomings of this proposal, and the ways in which it should--and could--be improved. I will first discuss the uncertainty the definition in this bill creates. We have heard repeatedly these past 2 weeks both worry and apprehension that the legislation before the Senate would actually exclude virtually all the GE products that are now on the market. This concern stems from the very narrow scope of the definition in this bill. This definition excludes any foods that do not actually contain the genetic material of a GE crop. So what does this mean in practice? This definition would exclude a wide variety of highly processed foods, from soybean oil to corn oil, corn syrup to sugar beets, and an array of other products that do not possess the actual genetic material after they have been processed. Now, the sponsors of this bill tell us, no, no, no--we have it all wrong. They say that our analysis and interpretation of the legislation is incorrect. They say to trust them. They say this bill gives USDA broad authority to label GE products. They point to a letter from USDA last week--and remind us that USDA would be the only agency with authority to implement and enforce the GE labeling rules. In that letter, USDA said that the bill as currently drafted would include all traditional gene modification products which have come through the USDA approval process, such as GE corn, soybeans, sugar, and canola products on the market today, as well as products developed using gene editing techniques. So, yes, on the surface, this bill appears to give USDA broad authority to develop a label for GE products. However, with the swift speed with which the proponents of this bill have moved, with no committee process, no debate or amendment process, we will not be able to ensure the language in this bill does exactly what they say that it does. Just take their word for it. The language and definition for a bioengineered food for this new label--and let me quote directly from the bill here--is a food that ``contains genetic materials that has been modified through in vitro recombinant DNA techniques.'' Well, let me interpret that for Vermonters and consumers across the country. That means that, if the food does not have genetic material in it, then it is not considered bioengineered under this bill. So even with the assurances from USDA last week, a simple study of this definition says that those foods that are highly processed and no longer have the modified genetic materials would not fall under this new label. The definition also goes on to say that a bioengineered food is one that--and, again, let me quote directly from the bill--``for which the modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature.'' This raises more red flags because many of the genes that have been modified or introduced do occur in nature, just not in the particular crop the gene has been added to. They might occur naturally--in frogs, say--but not in our crops. We have heard countless questions asking: Well, would it apply to this crop, or is it their intention that this other variety would have to be labeled if the gene being introduced occurs in nature? USDA says yes today, but will it say yes tomorrow? If you look at this bill, there is no clear-cut answer. We have seen with the Vermont labeling law, where the Grocery Manufacturer's Association took the State of Vermont to court to challenge its label, claiming it infringed on the association's freedom of speech, that such details matter. We know that the details of this bill are very important if we are going to ensure that it will hold up through the complicated regulatory process and in court, where surely a farm group or food manufacturer will challenge this law. If the sponsors of this bill would allow us to improve this definition and clarify what is covered, there would be a lot less concern and heartburn, and it could help to shed light on the true congressional intent of this proposal. That is why I have filed an amendment to strengthen the definition in this bill and to bring it more in line with what we have seen in other countries, where many of these same food manufacturers are labeling already for their export markets. Moving on to genetically engineered fish, another point the sponsors of this bill have tried to refute is how this bill treats genetically engineered salmon, potentially exempting such salmon from labeling. Again, the sponsors say we have it all wrong--that this bill would require the labeling of GE salmon and will not affect the FDA's authority to require a label under the agency's existing authority. However, at issue is that this bill preempts more than just Vermont's Act 120 on GE labeling. It also blocks laws like Vermont's seed labeling law and Alaska's fish labeling law, which requires that any GE fish in the State of Alaska bear a simple label to let consumers know. The salmon industry is vitally important to Alaska, and that is why the Alaskan Legislature passed their fish labeling law a decade ago. And what do we hear again from the bill's sponsors? I will tell you: They say don't worry. The FDA could still require GE labels for salmon. But we all know how the FDA has dragged its heels already in responding to concerns from Congress on the labeling of genetically engineered fish. Just last year, the omnibus appropriations bill directed the FDA to provide guidelines for the labeling of a fish as genetically engineered before the approval of a new genetically engineered salmon. By preempting Alaska's law, the Senate will tell the people of that great State that folks here in Washington know best. Even though you have a State law in place today to require this label, a law you have had on the books for a decade, Congress is going to preempt your State law and give USDA another 2 or 3 years before completing their labeling regulations. In the meantime, not your State--or any State--may have a law in place to ensure this label. That is not fair to the seafood industry in Alaska or to consumers who are looking for this information. That is why I have offered an amendment to grandfather in those State laws that were enacted before January 1, 2016. We took this same step in the recent Toxic Substances Control Act reform bill. States that had already enacted strong chemical safety laws were able to continue implementing them. We should be able to do the same with this labeling law today. Doing so would ensure there would be no ``patchwork'' we have been warned about and would let existing laws to stay on the books. On another matter, the sponsors of this proposal took careful steps to ensure that there are no teeth in this bill for any enforcement by the USDA. They specifically spell out in the bill that there is no authority for the USDA to recall products found to be improperly labeled under the requirements in the bill for GE foods. This bill is also void of any fines or punishments for violators, and there is no compliance deadline for companies. How, with a straight face, can we call this a mandatory label? The sponsors tell us again: Don't worry--there is enough ``strong enforcement authority through several mechanisms in the bill.'' First, they assert that, since USDA has been given the authority to audit any company that mislabels a food product or does not otherwise comply with the GMO disclosure requirements, it will allow them to ``hold them publicly accountable.'' They point out that State and Federal consumer protection laws are preserved in this bill and that the FDA retains its existing authority to regulate ``truthful and misleading'' claims on the labels. Now, that is a confusing point since the proponents of this bill have just told us that USDA was the only agency with authority to implement and enforce the GE labeling rules. So how is it that the FDA can still regulate ``truthful and misleading'' claims? Are we to then believe that the FDA will use its authority to enforce these labels that actually comply with a USDA requirement? Perhaps if we could clarify that issue in this bill, it would help to set the record straight when it comes to congressional intent and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. But, again, no. We will be blocked from offering any amendments to this bill to clear up this confusion and to ensure that the FDA can use their residual authority in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act's section 403, which covers truthful and misleading labels. To go from a State law that has some teeth and enforcement capability, as we have in Vermont, to a Federal standard with no penalties, recall opportunity, or other ways to enforce this new labeling requirement is alarming. The proponents point out that states have the ability to enact an identical State GMO labeling law and can provide additional enforcement authority if desired. So first they want to take away strong meaningful State laws on labeling. Then they tell those States they can pass something identical to the Federal law, as weak as you may think it is, and enforce it on behalf of USDA. All this because Congress appears too busy bending to the whims and interests of powerful interests to include any meaningful enforcement mechanisms in this bill. The sponsors of this bill also tell us that they feel that ``public sentiment'' will be enough to get these companies to comply and just do the right thing. Will our consumers have to be the cops on the beat to go after these companies? When these families are already having a tough enough time trying to squeeze every minute out of their days, now they will police these multimillion dollar companies to make sure they comply? That is highly unlikely, and it is patently unfair. Of course, then there is the matter of international labeling laws. Although some groups and Members of the Senate try to make it appear that what Vermont has done is completely novel, the fact is that labeling laws for GE crops exist in 64 other countries today. Certainly, they are not all identical, but I will tell you one thing: The definition for bioengineered food used in this bill is unlike any other in the rest of the world. On this point, we hear from the proponents of this bill that, among the 64 countries who require labeling of GMO foods, there is no consistently used definition of biotechnology or consistent way that this is applied to foods. In fact, they highlight that some of our major trading partners exclude some of the very products that they believe this bill provides authority to USDA to label. The fact is that consumers want the right to know for many varied reasons. For some, the question is a religious point. For others, they want to know the extent to which GE crops may increase herbicide use, not just the presence of the genetic materials in the food. That is why I have filed an amendment to strengthen the definition for the foods that must be labeled under this bill. My amendment is based on the United Nations' Codex, an intergovernmental body with more than 180 members, established by the framework of the Joint Food Standards Programme established by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the World Health Organization. A broader definition, as I have proposed, will also allow for this new label and USDA to keep up with modern science and the rapidly changing pace of gene modifications we are seeing developed and our researchers working on today. This bill should not be so narrowly drafted that it ties USDA's hands and ignores the fact that there are dramatic advancements in biotechnology every day. Ten years ago, it would have been hard to have predicted the scientific innovations in today's world, and who knows what developments we will see in the next 10 years. This bill should be drafted so that we ensure that USDA has sufficient authority to make these determinations in the future, without Congress needing to update this authorization every time there is a new scientific advancement in biotechnology. And then there is the so-called patchwork. I have heard from the proponents of this bill that their efforts are to prevent a patchwork of different State labeling laws. They claim that the existing State laws will cause confusion for consumers and food companies. But what they fail to explain is that we do not have a patchwork of State laws today. What every Member of the Senate should know is that Vermont is the only State that has a broad labeling law in place and in effect today. Maine and Connecticut's laws have yet to take effect due to trigger clauses in those laws. Even if they were to take effect, these three States have worked in tandem and all require that the same language--``Produced with Genetic Engineering''--appear on the package. In Vermont, our attorney general was given the authority to make amendments and changes to the State's labeling standard to ensure it is in line with other state standards to prevent consumer or industry confusion. So we do not have this fictional ``patchwork'' that some have claimed and used as reason to act immediately, without thorough debate and without opportunity for improvement. That is why I have filed another amendment to grandfather existing State laws for labeling, whether it be for seeds, GE salmon and Frankenfish, or GE foods. Given the mounting unanswered questions and legal ambiguity that surrounds this bill, I cannot fathom why the Senate is intent to fast- track it. Rather than going through any sort of orderly committee process, with hearings and markup, its sponsors have sought to use procedural tactics to avert a lengthy, controversial debate. It is in part why there was commotion and confusion last week when the Senate held a rare rollcall vote on the motion to lay before the Senate a message from the House to accompany a bill. The Senate Library and the Congressional Research Service had to hunt back to an example from 1976 that is cited in Riddick's Senate Procedure for when the Senate had to have such a vote. This is a complex issue, one that the Senate should consider deliberately, with a full and open debate of reasonable, germane, and relevant amendments. Only that process would ensure that we truly have a mandatory Federal label that does encompass the GE foods in the marketplace today and future advancements in biotechnology. Again, I am discouraged that Senators--Senators like me who have the benefit of their States creating a long record to support effective, mandatory GE labeling--have been cut out of the process in crafting this proposal. That is why I have nonetheless joined other Senators, including Senators Merkley, Sanders, Tester, Blumenthal, Franken, and Murkowski, in filing amendments for consideration. I would like to take a moment to explain to the Senate--and for the Record--just how modest and reasonable some of these amendments are. I have already mentioned a few. First, I have filed a series of amendments to address serious flaws in this proposal's use of electronic or digital codes. I am a proud supporter of Senator Merkley's legislation, long-pending in the Senate, to require a mandatory, on-package label of some kind to identify genetically engineered food for consumers. This proposal includes among its options digital codes--or QR codes, for those versed in the lingo. They are black and white boxes. The idea is a consumer takes their smartphone, scans the code; the Internet takes them to a page, where they can then scroll to find the information they seek. I don't know if many of you in this Chamber have been to Vermont. If you haven't, you should. It is beautiful, especially this time of the year. It is also rural. We still face internet challenges. More than that, consumers should not be forced to scan the codes of 30 items in their shopping basket, simply to learn if they include GE ingredients. What was once a quick trip to the market for milk and bread will turn into a 2-hour ordeal--and that is if you can access the Internet in the store. I have filed an amendment to strike the use of these so-called QR codes as a means of labeling. While this bill requires the Department of Agriculture to study the potential challenges to consumer access, it does nothing to assess consumer awareness. One of my amendments would expand this study. Another amendment would require that if such a study determines that consumers will not have sufficient access to information via electronic or other digital codes, the Secretary of Agriculture will require only on-package disclosure. Another amendment I have filed would simply require the language accompanying an electronic or digital code to say ``GE information,'' instead of simply ``food information.'' What harm would there be in giving consumers more descriptive and direct information? Another amendment that I have filed would strike this proposal's effort to preempt Vermont's longstanding seed law. On the books since 2004 and supported by organic farmers and hobby gardeners alike, there is no need for this bill to go so far as to preempt this longstanding law that gives farmers more information about what they are buying. Like others, I have filed an amendment to strengthen the definition of bioengineering and to strengthen consumer privacy with in the bill's requirements. I have an amendment to match the amount of GE food required to trigger a label to the 0.9 percent required in Vermont's Act 120 and other international labeling standards. And, importantly, I have filed an amendment to grandfather in Vermont's Act 120 and any other similar labeling laws enacted before January 1, 2016. The bill before us throws away the work of the Vermont Legislature. Rather than treat the Vermont law--the first-in-the-Nation GE labeling law--as the gold standard and the floor for any national law, instead of using Vermont's law as an instructive starting point for a national label, we throw away the work of our legislature, the voices of my constituents. Well, Vermonters will not be silenced on this matter. I am here to give voice to their views, even as the Senate muffles the progress our State has made in advancing a consumer's right to know. Speaking of which, I have heard from hundreds of Vermonters about this so-called mandatory labeling bill. For the benefit of the Senate's short record on this issue, I will take this opportunity to share with the Chamber some of the messages that I have received over the past few weeks. This is a map of our State, and the dots show where I have heard from my constituents. Many have shared their concerns about digital or electronic disclosure options. I could read thousands of these letters, but I will just read from a couple of them. John from Fairlee, VT, wrote: ``I am incensed over the Senate proposal to allow companies to put a bar code style label on packaging that could be read by using a smart phone to determine GMO content. First, I don't even have a smart phone and have no plans to buy one since we have no cell reception where I live. Even if stores have Wi- Fi, and I were willing to buy a smart phone, why should I have to go the extra step of connecting to a company's website to determine if its product contains GMOs?'' Well, John from Fairlee makes a lot of sense. For example, suppose you have a peanut allergy. Packages today will say if the food has peanuts in it or not. Suppose you have a gluten allergy. You can go into a store and the store will have whole aisles of gluten-free products, which would also be labeled that way. Why shouldn't you be able to just look at a simple label and see whether the ingredients were produced with genetic engineering? Campbell's Soup is going to do it. Why can't we just have a label? Katharine from Brattleboro, VT, wrote: ``I'm one of the many people who cannot afford a cell phone. The federal proposal for GMO labels that requires a cell phone would be useless to me and many others on fixed incomes, disability, etc. Please pass a federal law that doesn't require a cell phone to access information. I deserve to know what I am consuming as much as people with extra money who can afford a cell. It just isn't fair to the rest of us to keep us in the dark. I pay my bills and live frugally and responsibly. I do not use my money for entertainment or extras. But I do not deserve to be restricted from access to important information.'' She went on to say: ``Additionally, cell coverage in Vermont is, at best, poor. So even people with cell phones might not be able to access information.'' Well, this Senator agrees with her. Maureen said: ``I do not have a smart phone, as is true for most older Americans, and should not have to buy one in order to find out if the food I buy is genetically modified. This is a dishonest attempt to pander to big industry at the citizens' expense.'' Others, like Carl from Putney and Barbara from Hinesburg, said: ``I don't use a smart phone, and a label I have to scan will do me no good. I doubt I would want to scan everything I looked at in my supermarket, in any case. ``The proposed `labeling law' is in fact not a labeling law at all. As I understand it, the food producers would not need to disclose anything, just provide a phone number or website that consumers could use to find out whether the food is genetically modified.'' Carl and Barbara went on to say: `` . . . to have a label that can be read only with a phone app is ridiculous. We personally do not have such a phone and will not obtain one because where we live reception is challenging.'' Hundreds of Vermonters even joined together in sending me a letter that said: ``The bill requires the labeling of packaged foods containing GMOs in one of three ways: an electronic code that consumers can scan; USDA-developed symbol; or a label. The bill leaves it to manufacturers to decide which of the three methods they prefer. ``Now guess which method Big Food will choose? I have no doubt that they will choose the electronic code that can only be read with a scanner. They know that few will want to do this and even fewer will be able to.'' The letter continued: ``A recent national survey showed that only 16 percent of consumers have ever scanned a QR code for any purpose. Unless I want to take each item to the customer service desk in the grocery store, I must download a scanning app onto my smartphone-- assuming I even own one! No matter which app I choose, it may take a few tries to actually scan the code properly. Then I will have to wait for the website to pop up on the screen, which could take a long time depending on your network coverage inside the store, after which I might have to sift through the company's information to find the GMO information I am looking for. ``The QR code is hardly a label in any meaningful sense of the word. It adds a barrier between the consumer and the information he or she wants, and discriminates against those who do not own smartphones-- which is half of people living in rural areas, 75 percent of those over 65, and half of those making less than $30,000 a year. This legislation discriminates against all these people and especially the poorest Americans.'' Well, it is clear that the proposal before us today is driven more by the perspectives of powerful special interests than by a commitment to honor a consumer's right to know or by a legitimate effort to make information available to all Americans. Consumers are far from this deal's highest priority. If they were, we would not be contemplating an electronic or digital disclosure method when many rural areas, including most of Vermont, face significant technological challenges, not to mention that this digital disclosure would also discriminate against low-income and elderly populations. I have also heard from a number of Vermont organizations, all with grievous concerns about the proposal before us today. The Vermont Public Interest Research Group wrote: ``VPIRG opposes the . . . proposal because it is a thinly veiled attempt to keep consumers in the dark about what is in their food. This proposal is nothing but a sham aimed at eliminating Vermont's labeling law without replacing it with any meaningful federal standard. ``Vermont's labeling law took effect on July 1, and companies are already providing consumers with clear on-package labeling that allows them to make informed decisions about the food they are purchasing.'' They went on to say: ``Vermont's law is not novel or unique. Over 90% of Americans support labeling genetically engineered foods, and these products are already labeled in more than 64 countries around the world.'' Others, like Rural Vermont, said: ``On behalf of the members of the Board of Directors of Rural Vermont, who are all working farmers, and our statewide membership of other farmers and their customers, I am writing to urge you to do everything you can to prevent passage of this bill that proposes to provide a national standard for the labeling of food that is genetically engineered. This bill does not meet the fundamental needs of the over 90% of Americans who want genetically engineered food products to be labeled. ``This bill is no better than its predecessors in the Senate or the bill passed by the House in 2015. The fact that the bill offers as a `label' the option for food producers to require customers to use so- called QR codes to access information about the content of the product they are considering purchasing is absurd and blatantly discriminatory. The use of a QR code as a `label' requires that the customer A) Own a 'smart' cell phone, B) Have the application required to read the QR code installed on that phone, C) have adequate access to cellular service inside their grocery store (highly problematic, esp. in Vermont), and D) Have the time and patience to navigate the web site to which the QR code will direct them in order to find the information regarding the product they are holding in their hand--the content and transparency of which is still entirely determined by the food producer. Try suggesting this scenario to a busy mom with a couple of kids in tow and you are likely to be laughed, if not chased, out of the room.'' The Northeastern Organic Farming Association of Vermont wrote: ``Vermont's GE food labeling law Act 120, which is in effect as of July 1, provides a more meaningful, enforceable, and consumer-friendly labeling framework than the current federal proposal. It should be allowed to stand.'' I heard directly from Ben & Jerry's, which wrote: ``We are incredibly proud of the ingredients we use and we couldn't be happier to tell our fans and consumer about them. That's why we find it so hard to believe that there are food companies that do not want to disclose the ingredients they use. That they are fighting so hard to oppose what polls show 90% of American's want, the ability to look at a food package and know whether or not the product contains GMO ingredients.'' And others have reached out as well, saying this from the League of Conservation Voters: ``Under the proposal, companies may disclose GMO content through a QR code, a digital code which requires a smart phone or other scanning device to decipher. Those who do not have access to a smart phone--more than 50% of rural and low income populations, and more than 65% of the elderly--will have to rely upon scanners provided by another party to access information about GMO content.'' Other Vermonters have reached out to me to share their concerns about the right of States to legislate in a way that furthers the legitimate and significant interests of the State. They have reached out, urging me to reject this ``deal'' or any other bill that would prohibit states from requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods unless it is replaced by a strong mandatory national label. Jennifer from Bethel, VT, said: ``I and many other Vermonters urge you to reject this bill, we want Vermont's precedent-setting, mandatory labeling bill to go into effect, and for it not to be thwarted by efforts for a weaker, overriding federal program of voluntary, or QR- code based labeling, which would only let some consumers know what's in their food some of the time.'' James wrote: ``We have worked too long and hard to have our efforts scrapped by politicians who know little or nothing about growing natural nutritional food.'' He continued to explain that he and his wife testified before the Vermont State Legislature in support of Act 120, Vermont's GE labeling law. Another Vermonter said that this bill, which would nullify Vermonters' right to know what is in their food and legally bar any other State from enacting such a law, is ``an outrage.'' Many others also reached out to express their concerns that this ``deal'' is really just an attempt to undermine Vermont's law. The overwhelming message that I have heard loud and clear from so many Vermonters is that they simply want to know what is in the food that they feed their families. Leslie from Middlebury, VT, wrote: ``The people of Vermont have made their voices known. We want to know what is in the food we eat and feed our families.'' Eric from Strafford, VT, said: ``I strongly urge you to fight to defeat the GMO labeling agreement proposed by Senators Stabenow and Roberts. It would undermine the Vermont labeling law and fails to offer consumers the clarity they deserve about what's in their food.'' And others have reached out as well, saying: ``I am very disappointed that legislators in Washington are more interested in protecting the food industries than they are in providing information to the consumer. We consumers have a right to know what's in our food, how it was produced, and its origins.'' And: ``We have the right to know what is in our food in order to make informed choices about what we eat and feed our families.'' ``People need to have the right to know the contents of their food, it is ludicrous to deny this information to the people of this nation.'' ``Consumers have a right to know what is in their food. And providing consumers that information shouldn't be left up to the manufacturer.'' ``As a concerned consumer, I want the choices I make for my family to be completely informed.'' As well as: ``Like most Americans, I simply want to know what's in my food and how it was produced. That is why I support GMO labeling.'' From the many letters that I have received from Vermonters since this ``deal'' was announced, there is one in particular that I would like to share in full. Michael of Brookfield, VT, writes: ``Dear Senator Leahy, I have recently learned that Senators Roberts and Stabenow have proposed GMO labeling legislation. The proposed measure has numerous defects, and I urge you strongly to oppose it. ``The bill allows the agency to set the thresholds so high as to render the labeling requirement practically toothless. It also contains a loophole that could exempt corn and soy, the two most widely grown GMO crops in the country. Further, the actual required labeling would not require any actual information about the food to be put on the label, but instead can direct consumers to a website that has the required information. This would require both a smart phone and in- store internet connectivity in order to make a point-of-sale purchasing decision, neither of which are universal, especially here in Vermont. It seems that the authors of the bill are trying to make it as hard as possible to learn about what's in our food. ``I can understand the desire to prevent numerous conflicting GMO labeling laws from being enacted at the state level, but this ill- conceived substitute should be rejected. ``Sincerely, Michael'' I would hope Members of this body will heed Michael's advice. I am sure constituents in your own States feel the same way. The legislation before us today undermines the public's right to know and preempts labeling requirements for genetically engineered ingredients in States. While it is true that the proposal makes modest improvements to the legislation that the Senate wisely rejected in March, the fact remains that this was hastily crafted solely in an effort to undermine Vermont's GE labeling law that just took effect last Friday. And so I would like to recap some of these concerns. I remain concerned that this legislation takes away the rights of Vermont--or actually any other State--to legislate in a way that advances public health and food safety, informs consumers about potential environmental threats, avoids consumer confusion, and protects religious tradition. Not only would this legislation preempt Vermont's Act 120 GE disclosure requirement, but it would block other State laws like Alaska's requirement to label all products containing genetically engineered fish and shell fish, and Vermont and Virginia's laws requiring the labeling of genetically engineered seed or transgenetic seed. I remain concerned that the bill's definition of ``bioengineered foods'' has been written so narrowly that it allows some of the most common foods to go unlabeled. Whether this bill was drafted with the intent to exempt certain foods remains unclear. What is clear, is that the definition has created significant confusion, not just among consumers, but also in this very Chamber and across Federal agencies. That is why we should be having a full debate and amendment process to allow for technical corrections and to ensure clarity. I remain concerned that this bill allows for the use of electronic disclosure methods. In many rural parts of the country--including rural parts of the distinguished Presiding Officer's State, the rural parts of the distinguished Senator from Oregon's State, who is on the floor, and the many rural parts of Vermont--we have significant technological challenges that make it nearly impossible for consumers to access the electronic or digital disclosure methods allowed in this bill. I do believe that by requiring the Secretary of Agriculture to complete a study on this issue, these difficulties unavoidably will be recognized. However, significant questions remain. If the Secretary finds, as I am sure will be the case, that additional disclosure options are required for rural areas, will the USDA be responsible for installing scanners in grocery stores? Or are the proponents of this proposal going to put the burden on our retail establishments, large and small, to install costly digital scanners? A scannable code or a 1-800 number is not true disclosure. It is a burden on consumers. It creates an obstacle course from consumers. It is the exact opposite of what we mean when we say, ``Just Label It.'' I remain concerned that this proposal doesn't truly support a consumer's right to know. Consumers were an afterthought in the crafting of this ``deal.'' We should stay true to the kinds of things most of us say in our campaigns and our political advertising. We say: We are there for you. We are there to protect you. We are there for you. Well, that is not true. You, the consumer, were an afterthought of the crafting of this deal. The prime motivation was to allow large corporations to get by with doing as little as possible, and the bill's lack of transparency is counterproductive. The more information that we seek to hide from consumers about how their food is grown and manufactured, the more unnecessary red flags we raise for them. Our farmers and food producers should be proud to inform consumers about what they plant, how they grow it, the choices they make, and why. I also remain concerned that this proposal--even if you like the proposal--has no enforcement mechanism. I have trouble believing that public pressure will be enough to force these multimillion-dollar corporations to comply. You would think that 9 out of 10 consumers would be enough public pressure for Congress to respond, but it didn't do a single thing for this legislation. Consumers are not going to be able to make these multimillion-dollar corporations comply. This proposal makes consumers the cops on the beat, policing companies to provide information about the contents of their product. These corporations show that they don't really care what the consumers think, with some notable exceptions. Campbell's Soup, which is a multibillion-dollar corporation, has voluntarily decided to label their products, and I applaud them for doing that. So many others are not going to do so. Surely our Nation's families, who are busy squeezing every minute, out of every day, will not have time to hold companies accountable in the court of public opinion. We should not place this added burden on consumers who only want to know what they are feeding their families. Since this proposal was unveiled, I have heard from many Vermonters who care deeply about this issue. Just last Friday, I joined several hundred Vermonters on the statehouse lawn in my hometown of Montpelier to celebrate Vermont's Act 120 law taking effect on that day, July 1. I heard their voices loud and clear on this issue. The proposed ``deal'' before us falls short. It doesn't offer consumers what they need or what Vermont's legislators had in mind when they passed Vermont's Act 120, which is to have a simple and clearly written, on-package label. All we want is a simple on-package label so that, when we look at it, we know what we have. Dozens of Vermonters have told me that they do not own smart phones or do not get cell phone service in their towns. Katharine, from Brattleboro, VT, wrote to me and said: ``I'm one of the people who cannot afford a cell phone. . . . Please pass a federal law that doesn't require a cell phone to access information. I deserve to know what I'm consuming, just as much as people with extra money who can afford a cell phone. It just isn't fair to the rest of us to keep us in the dark.'' Katharine's sentiments were echoed by Maureen, from Fairlee, VT, who said: ``I do not have a smart phone, as is true for most older Americans, and I should not have to buy one in order to find out if the food I buy is genetically modified.'' Carl from Putney, VT also wrote to me, saying: ``I don't use a smart phone, and a label I have to scan will do me no good. I doubt I would want to scan everything I looked at in the supermarket, in any case.'' And you know Katherine and Maureen and Carl and the hundreds of other Vermonters who I have heard from are right. It is not fair, and it is exactly what these large corporations want: They want to hide information behind a QR code or a 1-800 number. Americans want to make informed decisions for their families and with their limited grocery budgets. One Vermonter, Denis, said it well in his message to me: ``The issue is simple: consumers deserve to know what they are consuming, including whether or not the ingredients are produced naturally or through genetic engineering, so they can make personal choices about what to purchase. GMO information needs to be clearly disclosed on the label as part of the nutrition and ingredient details.'' Lewis from Enosburg Falls also wrote to me about the importance of a consumer's right to know. He said: ``Everyone has the right to know what they are eating. Period. Vermont's labeling law will not judge GMOs as good or bad, it will simply confirm their presence in any product. I want to make informed decisions about what is in the food my family and I eat, whether it's salt, sugar, fat, or GMOs.'' What Vermont did, unlike the U.S. Senate, which had no hearings or open discussions--the Republican leader brought this bill out here under a fast-track so we couldn't have any real debate on it--was debate this issue for years. They held over 50 hearings on the subject. They had over 130 witnesses testify and all sides of the issue were heard. Yet the U.S. Senate has failed to hold a single hearing to debate these issues and hear expert testimony. The little State of Vermont had over 50 hearings and more than 130 witnesses. Our legislature represents 625,000 people. We had over 50 hearings and heard from more than 130 witnesses, while this Congress, which represents 325 million people, didn't have time for a single hearing on GE labeling. This Congress didn't have time to debate these issues and hear expert testimony. The U.S. Senate did not have one single hearing so that any of those 325 million Americans could be heard. If you saw this in a movie or something where they were poking satirical fun at the Congress, you would say: Oh, they have gone too far; that would never happen. Unfortunately, it has happened. This backroom deal made by the food industry has left too many gaping holes and questions that should have been addressed before this bill was fast-tracked through the Senate. Is the Vermont law perfect in every way? No, I do not contend that it is. The State was blocked and preempted from requiring a label on products that contain meat. And I will be the first to point out that there are challenges with Vermont being out there on its own with a label, but what we need to replace it is a strong national label that has been thoroughly debated and any confusion over intent clarified. This bill has been brought forward at this time simply to preempt Vermont's GE labeling law that just took effect on July 1. This, despite the fact that Vermont has a 6-month safe harbor or grace period until January 1, 2017. With 6 months left before Vermont's grace period ends, why are we not taking the time to hold a hearing? Why are we not having a full debate and amendment process? Why are we not listening to consumers in Vermont and across the nation who simply want to know what is in the food they feed their families and how it was produced? I hope other Senators will join me in rejecting these efforts to undermine the ability of States, such as Vermont, Alaska, Virginia, and others that choose to offer consumers and farmers purely factual, noncontroversial, and commercial information that furthers the legitimate and substantial interest of the State. I really can't support this so-called compromise. There have been no hearings and we have heard no testimony on it. It was suddenly handed to us as a fait accompli. We were told to take it or leave it. After all, the Big Money interests want us to take it. It is a last-minute attack on Vermont's law, and it is a last-minute attack on States' rights to set priorities at State government level. Instead of caving in to the lobbyists, we should be moving in a direction that offers consumers more information and more choices rather than hiding behind a toothless law that puts the industry's interests ahead of a consumer's right to know and sets industry interests ahead of consumers' right to know. This ``deal'' substitutes an easy-to-read label that everyone can understand, with a complicated scavenger hunt, which most people won't complete. It is a sham. It does not let people know what they need to know. It is a sham. Let's accept that. The Senate will vote one way or the other, but let's not have anybody going home saying we are protecting consumers. Instead, some Senators voted for a sham put up by a few well-heeled corporate lobbyists. I have said it before and I will say it again: 625,000 Vermonters deserve better. But even more importantly, all 325 million Americans deserve better. They should at the very least have had the benefit of hearings and full debate--to have people talk about this bill and have the opportunity to have our amendments considered. Instead, it was written in back rooms by heavily financed lobbyists, with input from corporate interests not the interests of the American people. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask unanimous consent that the time run equally on both sides.

Mr. LEAHY. Before the Senator yields the floor, he talked about what Vermont did. Isn't it a fact that the Senate didn't hold one single hearing or have one single witness come before they set this bill; is that correct?

Mr. LEAHY. In fact, the Vermont Legislature, is it not a fact, had at least 50 hearings with at least 130 witnesses?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would answer my friend and colleague from Vermont--especially, as a member of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, I am well aware of this--that there was not one single hearing, not one single witness. Unlike Vermont, with 50 hearings and 130 witnesses who expressed every single view, over 2 years of time and debate, we didn't have 2 minutes of debate and discussion. Vermont did 2 years.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to recognize the achievements and contributions of a remarkable advocate and distinguished leader in my home State of Vermont. This summer, Allen Gilbert will be stepping down from his position as executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont. For more than 12 years, Allen has inspired Vermonters and many others as an advocate for personal freedoms. When Allen began at the ACLU-VT, the office had three staff members, only one of whom was full time. Under Allen's leadership, the office has grown to a staff of five, with two lawyers committed to the State's legislative activities. Allen has become widely known for expanding the work and visibility of the ACLU-VT. Those who have had the privilege of working with Allen cite his boundless wisdom and passion for civil liberties among his many notable qualities. During his time with the ACLU-VT, Allen has been a champion of free speech, government transparency, and privacy rights, not just in Vermont but nationwide. I have long counted him as an ally in my own work. I was proud to invite him to testify before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007 about the REAL ID Act. More recently, Allen's contributions were extremely helpful as I developed reforms to curtail government surveillance powers, culminating in the enactment of the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015. Allen and I have also worked together to end Federal vehicle checkpoints near White River Junction. Among many successes, Allen is well-known in Vermont for his work on cases to protect students' rights to freedom of speech and political expression and the rights of the LGBT community. More recently, Allen and the ACLU-VT have worked to create more consistency among Vermont law enforcement agencies regarding the use of force. And Allen's work highlighting automated license plate readers, cell phone tracking devices, facial recognition technology, and the use of domestic drones has helped to educate Vermonters and its policymakers about the need to address these evolving technologies. In doing so, Allen has once again demonstrated his leadership in protecting Vermonters. I am not alone in recognizing Allen's talents and tenacity. In 2012, the Vermont Press Association awarded him with the Matthew Lyon Award for his lifetime commitment to the First Amendment and protecting the public's right to know. The award is named after the Vermont Congressman who won reelection from jail in 1798, while serving time for violating the Sedition Act because he challenged the power of the Presidency. Matthew Lyon is considered one of our Nation's earliest free speech heroes. Allen's commitment to freedom of speech and equality extends far past his 12 years at the ACLU-VT. In earlier years, Allen was a reporter and editor at the Rutland Herald and the Barre-Montpelier Times Argus. He also taught writing at a number of Vermont colleges and served as chair of the Worcester, VT, School Board while it supported a case for equal education opportunity. That 1997 Vermont Supreme Court case ultimately changed the way we fund public education in Vermont. Although Allen is leaving ACLU-VT, I know he will remain a lifelong advocate for the freedoms and liberties we hold dear. As Allen has said, ``There's a saying that civil liberties are never permanently won; you have to continue to fight for them constantly.'' He is an exemplary Vermonter, and I know he will continue that fight.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, just over 3 years ago, the Senate overwhelmingly passed comprehensive, bipartisan immigration reform. That bill secured the border. It provided an earned path to citizenship that would bring millions out of the shadows and reformed and modernized our legal immigration system. It represented the Senate at its finest. It was a serious effort to solve a serious problem. The two bills the Senate will turn to shortly stand in stark contrast. It appears that Republican leadership prefers instead an approach that is inspired by Donald Trump and the anti-immigrant rhetoric that is fueling his campaign. These efforts, embodied in the Toomey and Cruz bills, would take our immigration system in the opposite direction and pit local law enforcement and communities against each other, pushing hard-working immigrants back into the shadows. What a difference a change in leadership makes. There are few topics more fundamental to our national identity than immigration. A consistent thread through our history is the arrival of new people to this country seeking a better life. Immigration has been an ongoing source of renewal for America--a renewal of our spirit, our creativity, and our economic strength. The Senate reaffirmed its commitment to these ideals when we approved S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act 3 years ago. That legislation was supported by 68 Senators from both parties. It was a remarkable, bipartisan effort that was the subject of an extensive amendment process in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was an example of all that we can accomplish when we actually focus on the hard job of legislating. The bills we begin considering today could not be more different. They are not bipartisan. They do not reflect a desire to meaningfully improve what we all agree is a broken immigration system. Instead, these bills scapegoat an entire population for the crimes of a few. Those who support these bills point to a tragedy that captured our attention last summer. Any time an innocent person is killed, we have an obligation to understand what happened and try to prevent similar tragedies in the future. We all feel that way about the senseless and terribly cruel death of Kate Steinle. Her death was avoidable. Our system failed, period. And it is heart-wrenching that such a beautiful, young life was taken by a man who should never have been free on our streets. We are motivated to do something in the wake of her death, just as we are motivated to act in the wake of the senseless killings of 49 innocent people at an LGBT nightclub in Orlando, FL--or nine men and women attending a bible study class at the historic Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, SC--or the nine innocent people brutally murdered at an Oregon community college. These are moments that demand leadership. We should roll up our sleeves and address the problems that led us here, not seek bumper-sticker solutions that simply divide us further. Not only does the rhetoric around the Toomey and Cruz bills unfairly paint immigrants and Latinos as criminals and threats to the public, they actually risk making us less safe. Senator Toomey's bill would require State and local law enforcement to become immigration agents and, in doing so, would undermine basic community policing principles. It would undermine the trust and cooperation between police officers and immigrant communities that is necessary to encourage victims and witnesses to step forward and report the crime that impacts us all. It would weaken law enforcement's ability to apprehend those who prey on the public. And the draconian penalties in this bill will hurt our communities, which rely on Community Development Block Grants to fund crime prevention programs, provide housing for low-income families, support economic development and infrastructure projects, and rebuild communities devastated by natural disasters. Not surprisingly, it is opposed by mayors, domestic violence groups, Latino and civil rights groups, and labor organizations. Senator Cruz's bill is also dangerous. By creating two new mandatory minimums that will cost us billions of dollars to enforce, the bill diverts valuable resources away from efforts that actually keep us safe, like supporting State and local law enforcement and victim services, and does nothing to fix the broken immigration system we have today. The penalties imposed in Senator Cruz's bill would not have prevented Kate Steinle's murder. The man who murdered Kate served over 5 years for three separate illegal reentry violations and served a total of 16 years in prison. Judges already have the authority to impose long prison sentences, and this case proves they actually do. It is troubling that the majority leader is seeking a vote on this punitive, partisan bill, instead of working to pass the meaningful criminal justice reform legislation that has strong bipartisan support. It is yet another example of his willingness to put politics above real solutions. The problems plaguing our immigration system demand that we respond thoughtfully and responsibly. We can do better. We owe it to the American public to do better. I urge Senators to vote against cloture on these partisan bills that will not make us safer.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, this week we mark the signing of the Declaration of Independence and celebrate the values upon which this Nation was founded. Back in Vermont, we celebrated on July 4 with parades and fireworks displays, as did millions of Americans around the country. It is important, however, not only to celebrate our values on July 4, but also to live by them year-round. This means that we should embrace those public servants who, while working hard to build better lives for themselves and their families, enrich our communities and contribute so much to our Nation. We see the true meaning of patriotism in those hard-working Americans who ask what they can do for their country and pursue public service. Chief Judge Merrick Garland, who has served for nearly two decades as a Federal judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, is a perfect example. Chief Judge Garland also served for several years in the Justice Department, where he was charged with leading the Federal response to the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in our history. This is a person who makes us all proud to be Americans, but instead of honoring Chief Judge Garland's service, Senate Republicans have undertaken an unrelenting campaign of partisan obstruction against his nomination to the Supreme Court. Recently, Reid Hoffman, the Silicon Valley entrepreneur and founder of LinkedIn, penned an op-ed criticizing the Senate Republican blockade of Chief Judge Garland's nomination: ``Effectively, [Majority Leader McConnell] and his allies are in the midst of a year-long strike. ``Imagine if entire departments at Fortune 500 companies announced they were going to stop performing key functions of their job for a year or more, with no possibility of moving forward until a new CEO took over. Investors would start dumping their stock. Customers would seek out alternatives. Competitors would make these companies pay for such dysfunctional gridlock. Eventually executives and employees would be fired. ``In Silicon Valley, such behavior would be corporate suicide.'' I could not agree more. We cannot allow Senate Republicans to unilaterally decide to refuse to do its job, and essentially create ``dysfunctional gridlock.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Instead of scheduling a hearing for an impeccably qualified nominee, Republicans are holding Chief Judge Garland's nomination hostage in their hopes that the Republican Party's presumptive Presidential nominee will be elected and make a different nomination. This is the same candidate who has displayed a stunning misunderstanding of the role of the judiciary and who accused a sitting Federal judge of bias simply because of his heritage. While some Senate Republicans have rightly condemned those racist attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel, they are still standing by the man who launched those racist attacks. As former U.S. Attorney Steven Dettelbach in Ohio put it in a recent op-ed, ``if country really does come before party, how can anyone who calls himself an American leader still support this man who openly berates public servants based on their race?'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Senate Republicans' partisan refusal to do their jobs extends to the lower courts as well. In the 19 months that Senate Republicans have had a majority, they have allowed just 21 votes on judicial nominations. As a result, Federal judicial vacancies have skyrocketed. This is not how the Senate should operate, and the American people deserve better. When Democrats controlled the Senate during the last 2 years of President George W. Bush's administration, we worked hard to confirm judicial nominees with bipartisan support. During those 2 years, we confirmed 68 of President Bush's judicial nominees and reduced the number of judicial vacancies to 34. We even held hearings and confirmation votes into late September of the election year, because filling vacancies with qualified nominees with bipartisan support is more important than scoring partisan points. Senate Republicans have not shared that priority, or else they would never have allowed judicial vacancies to nearly double from 43 to 83 since they have controlled the Senate, leaving two dozen judicial nominations pending on the Senate floor. The nominee the Senate will finally vote on today, Brian Martinotti, was nominated over a year ago to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Judge Martinotti has been awaiting a floor vote for over 250 days, even though his nomination was reported by voice vote by the Judiciary Committee last October. Since 2002, Judge Martinotti has served as a judge on the Superior Court of New Jersey. Prior to that, he spent 15 years in private practice. Judge Martinotti has also served as a public defender, as a prosecutor, and as a municipal tax attorney. The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Martinotti ``Well Qualified'' to serve on the district court, its highest rating. He has the support of his home State Senators, Mr. Menendez and Mr. Booker. I support his nomination. Even after today's vote, there will still be 24 judicial nominations languishing on the Senate floor. One of them was reported at the same time as Judge Martinotti and has also been awaiting a vote for over 8 months. We still do not have an agreement to vote on the nomination of Edward Stanton to the Western District of Tennessee. In 2010, the Senate voted unanimously to confirm Mr. Stanton as the U.S. attorney for that district. His current nomination is supported by his two Republican home State Senators, and he was unanimously voice voted out of the Judiciary Committee. I hope the Republican Senators from Tennessee will be able to persuade the majority leader to schedule a vote for Mr. Stanton's nomination before we leave for the 7-week recess he has scheduled. It is the Senate's duty to ensure that our independent judiciary can function. Senate Republicans must be responsible and act on Chief Judge Garland's nomination, as well as the 24 judicial nominations that are languishing on the Senate floor.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LEAHY. Parliamentary inquiry: Notwithstanding what the majority leader has said, the legislation he brought up would defund Planned Parenthood; is that correct, if it was accepted?

Mr. LEAHY. Parliamentary inquiry: Would that be a position for the United States Senate if we were allowed to vote on it?

Mr. LEAHY. Could I get an answer to my parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. LEAHY. Further Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Mr. LEAHY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: If the majority leader were to withdraw the House bill to defund Planned Parenthood and replace it with the Roberts GMO bill, would the acceptance of that be a debatable motion before the Senate? Not asking how we should vote, but would that be a debatable motion? Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, further Parliamentary inquiry.