Jeff Merkley

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I am rising to speak to this issue from a simple American citizen point of view. The American citizen wants the right to know what is in their food. They want to know how many calories; they want to know what the minerals and the vitamins are and what the ingredients are. It is a simple standard because it is important to an individual to know what you are putting in your mouth, what you are putting on the table for your families and your children. This is a principle that we have honored time and again on our packages. We proceeded to put on our packages whether fish is farm raised or wild caught because citizens wanted to know. It makes a difference to them. It is their choice. It is their judgment. We put on our packages whether juice is from concentrate or is fresh because citizens wanted to know. It is important to them. It is their right to know. We put the list of ingredients on the package in a simple format, not so that someone can spend an hour trying to research what is in it. No, we have a simple 1-second test. You pick up the food off the counter, you turn it over, you look at the list of ingredients and you say, this has the vitamin C I wanted; this has the calories I wanted--the 1- second test. That is what is at stake because the bill that is before us right now kills the 1-second test. It kills immediate access to information for consumers. It says we are going to eviscerate States' rights to respond to this desire of citizens to know what is in their food. This is a desire that stretches all across the United States, all genders, all ages, all parties. In fact, 9 out of 10 Americans say they want this simple information on the package to meet this 1-second test just like calories. Now here we are in this deeply divided Nation, this Nation in which we see in this Presidential campaign extremes to the left and the right and everything in between, and we wonder what is happening. Isn't there anything we can agree on? Well, the fascinating thing is that here is something we can agree on: 80-plus percent in every category--Republicans, Democrats, Independents--almost all of them near the 9-out-of-10 factor, women over 80 percent, men over 80 percent, young over 80 percent, old over 80 percent. In other words, all of those are between 80 and 90 percent no matter who you are, where you are, what your gender is, or how old you are. Nine out of ten Americans want to know what is in their food, and they want it easily accessible on the package. My colleague talked about direct access to information. In this case, ``direct access'' is somewhat of a term subject to interpretation because to the consumer, direct access is the 1-second test. I pick up the package, I flip it over, 390 calories, thank you very much. Done. But the term today is being used for indirect access. Let's look at these different hall-of-mirrors proposals that are being put forward. OK. Sham No. 1 is the 800 number, an 800 number on the package. What is the purpose of that 800 number? The package doesn't say. There are 800 numbers on all kinds of packages. You call up the company and complain because there is contamination in your frozen peas. What is the purpose of it? Is it so you can call the company and ask about new products coming out? Without any information around it, it is just a number. And citizens don't just go to a product and call a number. Why? Because they are busy. They are going down the grocery store aisle. They have a supermarket cart. They have a child in there. They want the 1-second test. They don't want to be told they have to call a call center and get in a phone tree and press a bunch of buttons, and then a message comes on and says: I am sorry, due to high call volume, we will get to you in maybe 20 minutes, but stay on the line and we will play sweet music for you. And maybe--if you stay on the line long enough--maybe it is not 20 minutes; maybe it is an hour. You get someone in a call center overseas who is saying things in an accent you can't understand. Citizens hate that. And they hate pretend, false solutions. This does not mean direct access to information. This is direct: It is in my hand, 1 second. I see it. That is direct. Now there is another idea. It is called a QR code, or quick response code--quick response, computer code. Why is this on the package? No explanation. So is putting something with no explanation on a package helpful to consumers? No. Is it there so you can scan it when you check out to see what the price is? Is it there to find out about new products that are coming out from this company? Is it there because you might possibly find out information about discounts? You have no idea. There is no explanation. And when you use that code, you give up personal information. So you have to have a phone. You have to have a smartphone. You have to have a data plan. You have to give up your privacy. And there is no explanation why you would even bother to go to it. That is completely misleading. That is why I call it the hall of mirrors. It is like you are at a circus. We have an 800 number, we have a QR code, no real information, no direct access to information. Let's be honest with the American public. Nine out of ten Americans want this information presented in a simple format. A nationwide poll that was done in November did a followup question: Would you prefer for it to be simply stated on the package or have a QR code? Again, 9 out of 10 said they wanted a direct statement on the package. Look how much room this takes up. Isn't it a lot simpler just to put a little symbol on there? That is all people want. They are not asking for anything that takes up room or costs anything, just like it doesn't cost anything to put another ingredient on your package if you add it to your ingredient list. Labels are changed all the time. I met with industry, and they said: Here are our top three priorities. Priority No. 1 is, we want a single national standard so we don't have conflicting State standards. OK. That is understandable. We are on the verge of having that. In July we would have one State with a standard. There is nothing on the horizon for two States. There are several States that have said: If a whole bunch of States sign up, we will do something collectively. But certainly we are not at risk in the months ahead of more than one State standard, so there is no emergency here. But I agree with the underlying principle that, indeed, when it comes to labels, a warehouse shouldn't have to worry about whether it is shipping product to one subdivision of the State or another subdivision of the State or one State versus another State. So one standard is reasonable. The second thing they said is, we don't want anything on the front of the package because that might imply there is something wrong with the food. OK. Fair enough. The third thing they said is, we don't want anything pejorative. Fair enough. Have the FDA select a symbol to put on the package. We could solve this whole debate immediately for those who want to put on a QR code and just say: Scan this code for GE ingredients in this product. OK. Now the consumer gets the 1-second test. They look at it and see there are GE ingredients, and that is all they want to know. They don't want to scan it and give up their privacy, and they don't want to have to go to the Web site and look up the product, where information would probably be misleading anyway. So that is fair enough. Now, there is a third idea that has been put forward, a third thing that is supposed to count as answering customer inquiries, and that is in this bill--to put information on social media. This triples the size of the house of mirrors. A consumer goes to look at the product to see if it has a code. No. Does it have an 800 number? No. Oh, there is this social media thing. Well, we all know there are over 100 companies doing different types of social media. We know the famous ones. We know Facebook and Instagram and Twitter. So where on their social media did this company put that information? Well, now you really have to be a detective. You could spend hundreds of hours trying to figure out the answer to that. So the 800 number is phony, the QR code is a scam, and this whole social media thing is a sham. All citizens want is for us to be honest with them about the ingredients. That is all they are asking for. It is not very much. Scientific studies point to the benefits of some genetic engineering, and they point to problems that have arisen from some genetic engineering. It should be up to the citizen. The citizen has the right to know. In this age where we are so divided, we have one thing in common, and that is that 90 percent of our citizens--whether from the Presiding Officer's State or any of the States represented by Senators in this distinguished Hall, 90 percent of the citizens want a simple indication on the package. So why today are so many Senators coming to this floor saying they don't care about what their citizens feel? They don't care about their citizens' rights, and they don't care about States' rights. I have heard so many colleagues who are planning to vote for this sham and scam today come to this floor and talk about the beauty of States as a laboratory for ideas. Well, now, here is Vermont. Vermont has said: We will step up. We will be the laboratory. We will be the first standard and experiment in putting simple information on the package. Before we make any decision, the rest of the Nation gets the advantage to observe that State laboratory and then to say: Is it working or is it not working? Are there problems being created? How can it be improved? Do we want this as a model for the Nation for a single standard, or do we say that we absolutely don't want it as a model for the Nation? Well, many of my colleagues here plan to crush the State laboratory. They have given fancy speeches about States' rights, but they are coming down today to vote to crush States' rights to respond to a fundamental concern of their citizens. I must say I like the idea of the State laboratory and to see what one State does, but I also understand the underlying concern that in short order there might be multiple States and conflicting standards, and that is not a functioning situation for interstate commerce. So if we take away the right for a State to give the 1-second test for direct information--1 second--turn over the package; there are 880 calories. That is the test. Turn over the package. GE ingredients are present. Thank you. That is the 1-second test. If we are going to crush the ability of a State to respond to a fundamental concern of its citizens, then we need to provide the same basic provision not in a scary fashion and not in a fashion that takes up space on the package, not on the front of the package; one standard for the entire United States, but it has to meet that test. That is all. It is a simple, fair exchange. So today I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture because this bill is among the worst bills I have ever seen on the floor of the Senate. It is without good justification, without resolving the issue at hand, crushing States' rights, taking away citizens' right to know, and putting out three phony scam, sham alternatives. That is a very sad state of affairs. Another sad state of affairs is that this bill is on this floor having not gone through committee. We have heard a lot of pontificating about good process in the Senate and how we were going to have good process, but here is a bill written entirely outside the halls of the committee, never considered in the committee, and here it is on the floor. Such an important issue would merit substantial debate. Such an important issue would merit a full and free amendment process. But two things happened immediately after this bill was introduced. The first is that the majority leader immediately filed cloture; that is, to close debate. So before one word--not one word had been said on this bill because no one was able to speak between the bill being put on the floor and cloture. Oh, hey, I just filed the bill, and I am closing debate. That is not a fair and open process. Then the tree was filled, so no one can put an amendment forward. On such an important issue, that is not a situation that is acceptable. Furthermore, this was deftly timed to occur simultaneously with the five big primaries yesterday. So this is a moment where the American people are paying attention to Florida, they are paying attention to Illinois, and they want to know what happened in Missouri. They want to know what occurred in these five States. The press is paying attention to that. That is the one day of debate allowed before this cloture motion is voted on. So let's take this bill and put it in committee and actually have a committee process to consider it. Then bring it back to the floor with whatever changes the committee makes, and hopefully the committee would honor the fundamental right to know by consumers. Bring the bill back to the floor and have a full and open amendment process on something so important to citizens. But do not crush States' rights. Do not steal consumers' right to know and try to do it in the dark of night while the Nation is distracted by major primaries. It is wrong on policy, it is wrong on process, and it is an injustice to every citizen in our Nation. Here is the situation: The Nation is very cynical about this body. This body here, they say, isn't responding to the concerns of the American citizens. Is there any single bill that has been more an example to justify that cynicism than this bill which is before us right now? When 9 out of 10 Americans say this is important to them, the majority of this body says: We don't care. When 9 out of 10--or roughly that number--Democrats and Republicans and Independents all agree on something, this body says: We don't care. Isn't the cynicism of the American citizens justified? Here is the thing: Our Nation was founded on a simple principle. That principle is embodied by three beautiful words in the beginning of our Constitution: ``We the People.'' Well, we the people want simple information on the package. So if we are here to honor that principle, why is this bill before us, I ask my colleagues. Why a bill that says the interests of a few titans in crushing a State laboratory is more important than the views of 90 percent of Americans? And when those Americans are asked, more than 7 out of 10 say this is very important to them, so this isn't one of those casual issues. Why is it so important? Because this is food they put in their mouths and on their table, and even if they have no concerns about the GE product itself, they feel they have a right to know. So let's return to the principles on which this Nation was founded. Let's quit feeding the cynicism of citizens across this Nation who see these powerful special interests doing the opposite of what citizens ask for. Let's be a Chamber that honors our relationship with our constituents, not one that tries to stomp out their rights. Let's not allow debate to close on this bill. Let's send it back to committee. Let's have a committee process. Let's have a floor debate in the future, with full and free amendments, on an issue so important to our States and so important to our citizens. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from Montana.

Mr. MERKLEY. Is the Senator saying the whole idea presented in the Monsanto DARK Act 2.0 about putting a phone number on the package so someone can call a company is a sham?

Mr. MERKLEY. Bogus.

Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to continue for another 10 minutes.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, will my colleague from Montana yield for a question?

Mr. MERKLEY. I thank the Chair. So we have these affects that scientific documents are showing. So when people come to this floor and say that it is OK to suppress the consumers' right to know because consumers have no legitimate concerns, that there are no scientific studies that show any legitimate concerns about the impacts of genetically engineered plants, are they telling the truth? Is that accurate?

Mr. MERKLEY. I thank so much my colleague from Montana for being such a clear and powerful voice on this issue of freedom, of American consumers' rights, of States' rights, and for his solid opposition to this Monsanto DARK Act--Deny Americans the Right to Know--2.0. Thank you. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I will use these papers as examples of food products. I have three different bags of rice, and I want to look. I can scan the ingredients list of these three products to see what they contain. Well, in about 5 seconds--if what is required of me is to pull out my phone, call up an 800 number, work my way through a phone tree, proceed to talk to someone who may or may not even know what I am calling about--and maybe I will get a busy signal or a message that says: I am sorry, our phone lines are very busy, but we will get to you in 25 minutes. How long am I going to have to stand there versus the 5 seconds that it takes if there is a symbol or an indication on the ingredients panel for these three products? While standing in the aisle of the grocery store, how long is it going to take me to try to find out if these three products have genetically engineered ingredients?

Mr. MERKLEY. There is a second option put into the Monsanto DARK Act, which is the quick response code. You have to have a smartphone that can take a picture of that quick response code, take you to a Web site to get information--information, by the way, written by the very company that controls the product you are looking at. It is not some third party. I picture that as taking just as much time and being just as complex for the ordinary person as the 1-800 number. The QR code requires first that you actually have a data plan to be able to get to a Web site, that you have a smartphone instead of an ordinary cell phone, and furthermore it reveals information about you when you go to that Web site, so you are giving up your privacy. So is the QR code option being discussed also a sham?

Mr. MERKLEY. I think my colleague summed it all up in the word ``freedom''--the freedom to choose. And that freedom to choose--if it is between wild fish and farmed fish, we facilitate that by giving the information on the package. If it is the freedom to choose between juice from concentrate versus fresh squeezed--juice from concentrate or fresh juice--that, in fact, is a freedom of the consumer, and they can exercise it from the package. If someone decides they want to have a product that is vitamin A enriched, such as golden rice which has been done by GE engineering-- maybe they need more vitamin A--they should have the freedom to choose it. In fact, my point here is that there are scientific studies that show benefits in a variety of circumstances from genetic engineering, and there are studies that show legitimate concerns. On the benefits side we have cases--for example, sweet potatoes--in which they have been made to resist viruses that kill. In South Africa, that has been very important to the growth of sweet potatoes and the provision of that as part of a significant source of food in parts of that country. Then there is golden rice being enriched with vitamin A in regions of the world where people eat primarily rice, but they really lack vitamin A. But there are also studies that show concern. Shouldn't we as consumers have freedom? Why is it that we have on the floor a bill which not only takes away States' rights to respond to consumers' interests in freedom, but proceed to squash, for all time and in all geographic areas, the freedom of an individual to make that decision? And then they put up a sham which says that somehow, the consumer could inquire by guessing at a social media outlet or going to a phone bank that is somewhere overseas in the Philippines to find out whether or not there is a GE ingredient or having to give up their privacy and go to a Web site sponsored by the company that made the food. That is not information that allows the consumer to make a choice. What if a consumer had to go to a phone company operating overseas to find out--I don't know--the calories that are in the food or the vitamins that are in the food? That would be ridiculous. It is absurd. It is a sham and a scam. It is a theft of individual freedoms in this country. And shouldn't we all in the Senate be standing up for freedom for American citizens who, by the way, when asked in a nationwide poll, 9 to 1 say they want this information on the package; 9 to 1 say that. Here we are in this deeply divided country where we have this huge spectrum of ideologies that we are seeing in the Presidential campaign. Yet, on this issue, Independents, Republicans, and Democrats, 9 to 1--I am rounding off slightly, but very close--9 to 1 in all three categories say they want this information on the package, and 7 out of 10 said they feel very strongly about this. So that is the desire of the American people. That is the ``We the People'' that is in our Constitution that we are pledged to support. Here we have a bill on the floor that is designed in the dark of night while people are paying attention to Presidential primaries, the press is paying attention to that, and in the dark of night they are trying to take away that freedom. Isn't that just completely wrong?

Mr. MERKLEY. Well, in this Monsanto DARK Act 2.0 that has been put on the floor, there is a third option beyond the voluntary labeling and beyond the 1-800 numbers and QR code, and the third option--door No. 3, if you will--is that the company can put something on social media, which means, I assume, Instagram, Facebook, or who knows what. So if I am a customer and I am in the store and I see these three products and I want to find out if they have GE ingredients and there is no 800 number and there is no QR code because the company has chosen door No. 3, how am I to know that?

Mr. MERKLEY. The majority leader has put this bill on the floor, and it has not even gone through a committee hearing because this is a new creation that we have just seen for the first time last night. Furthermore, it has been put on the floor the night before one of the most important primary days in the Presidential election, strategically scheduled, if you will, so that the news networks are busy with Florida and Ohio and Illinois and two other States, and they are not paying attention to this egregious proposal to take away States' rights and consumers' rights. We had a pledge from the majority leader coming into here that due process--things would be considered in committee and things would be fairly considered on the floor with an open amendment process. Has this Monsanto DARK Act 2.0 gone through a committee process, and is it getting a full opportunity to be heard on the floor? In fact, the motion to close debate was filed within seconds of it being put on the floor last night. Is this a true opportunity for the American people to wrestle with a major policy decision taking away States' rights and consumers' rights?

Mr. MERKLEY. Is it right that the Federal Government takes away this power from States, which are, if you will, our places of experimentation and creativity, and then does nothing at the national level? Is this an overreach of the Federal Government?

Mr. MERKLEY. Thank you. I appreciate the Senator's presentation. This Monsanto DARK Act 2.0--this new version--says to the States that they no longer have the right to respond to consumers' interest in providing a consumer-friendly label that alerts them to genetically engineered ingredients, but it does not replace that with a federal consumer-friendly label?

Mr. MERKLEY. Well, this taking away the right to know--it isn't like the right to know some detail about how your car was manufactured. As the Senator put it, this is about the food you put into your mouth. This is about the food we feed our families. This is about what our children consume. I was very surprised to read this from a scientific study: Two-thirds of the air and rainfall samples tested in Mississippi and Iowa in 2007 and 2008 contain glyphosate, which is the herbicide being applied in massive quantities because of the genetically engineered resistance of key crops, including corn and soybeans and sugar beets. So the herbicide is very prevalent in the rainfall samples and it is very prevalent in the air samples, or at least two-thirds of the air samples. Then, a recent study published in the Journal of Environmental & Analytical Toxicology found that humans who consume glyphosate-treated GMO foods have relatively high levels of glyphosate in their urine. So, actually, residuals are finding their way into our bodies There are other effects. Glyphosate is a known carcinogen. It has been defined as a known carcinogen. But this herbicide is also running into the streams. Study after study is showing big impacts on the microbial population, and that is at the base of the food chain, so it is affecting the food chain inside our rivers and our streams. There is gene transfer to relatives--weeds that are relatives of the growing crops. There is an impact on the evolution of bugs; specifically, the western corn root worm which is evolving, if you will, to become resistant to the pesticide that is in the plant because of the genetic--

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this debate on the Monsanto DARK Act, which stands for Denying Americans the Right to Know, centers around two basic propositions. The first proposition is that it would be chaotic to have 50 States with 50 different labeling standards. How could a food company possibly always get the right label to the right store if there are 50 different State standards? This is not a problem we actually have yet because we have no States that have adopted a standard for GE labeling. We have one State--I should say no States have implemented it. One State has adopted a standard, and that won't be implemented until July. So we are far away from having any issue over conflicting standards. But I acknowledge the basic point. This makes sense. It makes sense that we don't want to have a world in which every State has a different approach: In this State you do X, Y, and Z, and in this State you do A, B, and C, and what the exemptions are differ, and the formats differ, and so on and so forth. So let's just concede that at this point, it makes sense to have a single standard for the country. But a single standard about what? That brings us to the second basic proposition, which is that there be a consumer-friendly alert that there are GE ingredients in a product. That is all. If a State says they want to have a simple, consumer-friendly alert that there are GE ingredients, then they should be able to do that. If we don't want 50 standards, then we need to have the replacement be a national standard that provides the same thing, that is a consumer-friendly alert that there are GE ingredients. Then the individual can do more investigation. They can go to the company's Web site and find out the details, including what type of genetic engineering it is, what is its impact, and so on and so forth. Right now there is a coalition of individuals in this Chamber who don't believe in Americans' right to know. They want to take it away. They want to support a bill, which is currently on the floor right now, that denies Americans the right to know because they are getting pressure from Monsanto and friends, and they are not willing to stand up for the American citizen, their constituents. They don't believe in a ``we the people'' America; they believe in ``we the titans,'' that we are here simply on the end of a puppet string. But we are not here for that purpose. That is not the vision of our Constitution. The vision of our Constitution is that we are an ``of the people, for the people, and by the people'' world. That is what makes America beautiful, not that a few powerful groups can control what happens here in this Chamber, this honored and revered Chamber where it is our responsibility to hold up our ``we the people'' vision of the Constitution. So this bill, this Monsanto Deny Americans the Right to Know Act 2.0, has a few shams and scams placed in it to pretend that it is a labeling law. The first scam that it has in it--or sham--is an 800 number. I as a consumer can go to a grocery shelf and in 5 seconds I can check three products for an ingredient by looking at the label; 1 second, 2 seconds, 3 seconds--well, less than 5 seconds. In 3 seconds I can check and see whatever I want to find out. If I want to check the calorie count or check for vitamin A or what percentage of the daily recommended amount is in the food or if I want to see if it contains peanuts because I am allergic to peanuts, I can do it for three products in 3 seconds. That is consumer-friendly. That is why we put it on the label. That is why we say: Oh gosh, we are going to give people the information they want so they can exercise their freedom when they buy things to support what they want. That is integrity between the producer and the consumer. But do we know what the opposite of integrity is? That is the DARK Act. Deny Americans the right to know and ban States from providing this basic information. It is the complete absence of responsibility to the citizen. Well, there is a 1-800 number. How would that work? First of all, I have to find the 800 number. Then I have to make sure I have a phone with me. Then I have to make sure I have good cell phone coverage. Then I have to go to a phone tree. You know how these work. You go to the phone tree, you listen to eight options, you pick the option, it takes you to another list, you pick another option, and then finally, after about five levels, they connect you. They say: If you want an operator, press this, and you press it and you go to some call center in the Philippines. They don't know what you are talking about. This is not consumer-friendly. Looking at the ingredient list takes 1 second. It is 10 minutes or more when you call that 800 number, and maybe you get a message: I am sorry, we have a large call volume right now, and we will be able to answer your call in 20 minutes. That is not consumer information; that is a scam and a sham. That is not the only one that is in this DARK bill. The second sham is this idea of a quick response code, like this one in the picture, this square code. Again, as a consumer you can't look at the ingredients and see the answer, if there are GE ingredients, no. Now you have to have not just a phone but a smartphone. You have to hope it has a battery, that it has a photo appliance with it. You have to take a picture of that code, and then that code takes you to some Web site written by the very producer who gives you the answer, maybe, or maybe they lay out a whole architecture of stuff that obfuscates it, confuses you, and you don't really get the answer, when all you needed was a little tiny symbol on the package that indicated whether it had GE ingredients. So, again, how long does that take? Ten minutes per product? Thirty minutes for the first item on your shopping list as you compare three products? That is not consumer-friendly--3 seconds versus 30 minutes--and that is just the first item on your shopping list. There is not one person in this Chamber who truly believes this is a fair substitute for consumer-friendly information. This is a sham and scam No. 2. If this QR code had a message on it and this message right here written on the back said ``There are GE ingredients, and for details, scan this code,'' that is consumer-friendly. That is all the consumer wants to know. That is all we are asking for--a consumer-friendly alert. Then that QR code for more information is fine. That is perfectly fine. But without it, nobody even knows why it is there. What is it there for? Is this where you find out information about the company? Is this where you find out information about the new products they are going to be putting out? Is this where you find information about special sales that are going on? Nobody has any idea. Well, the DARK bill doesn't stop with sham No. 1 and sham No. 2. No, it gives us even more fake labeling because we see it says that a form of labeling is to have no label but to put the information on your Web site. Well, to call that a label is simply a misrepresentation--and ``misrepresentation'' is a fancy word for ``lie''--because there is not any information that even appears on the product. None. So we say: Well, I was told there would be an 800 number. I am not finding it. I was told there might be a box, and I think it is for finding out if there are GE ingredients. But I don't find that computer code box, no, because they have adopted door No. 3, and door No. 3 is to put something on some form of social media. But what social media? Are you supposed to go to Instagram or Facebook or Twitter? Nobody has any idea. So now there is nothing--let me repeat: nothing--on the product. So what could be learned in 1 second by a consumer, now the consumer has fully no idea. And because this whole thing is voluntary, lots of products may just choose to put nothing up. The proponents of the DARK Act say: No, we have a pathway to more information. If companies don't put up information in the form of a barcode or a phone number or something on a social media Web site, well then we will require something in one of those three areas. That requirement down the road still provides no consumer-friendly information. It is a pathway through a hall of mirrors that leads to a hall of mirrors. It never leads to concrete, simple information. Don't you know that if you told consumers they would have to go to a Web site to find out if there is vitamin D in the product, that would be ridiculous? It should just be printed on the package. Don't you know if someone were interested in high fructose corn syrup and they were told they had to dial a call center in the Philippines to find out that information, consumers would say that is absurd? We all know that is the case. Ninety percent of Americans strongly believe--or believe when given the choice--that there should be this information directly on the label. I am rounding up from 89 percent. Let's round it off. When questioned as to whether there should be information on the label to say whether there are genetically engineered ingredients, 9 out of 10 Americans say yes, there should be, and 70 percent say they feel very strongly about this. So here are our constituents, and 9 to 1, they want us to provide information. But up here on Capitol Hill we have Senator after Senator who does not care what their constituents think. They care only what big Monsanto and friends want, which is to deny Americans the right to know. That is irresponsible. That is wrong. When we look at this number, you can see by how high it is that this is not partisan because it would be impossible to have a big difference--100 percent of one party and 80 percent of another might round off to 90 percent. But that is not the way it is. Whether you are an Independent, Democrat, or Republican, in all 3 groups, 9 out of 10 individuals, plus or minus a few percentage points, say they want this information on the package. So here we are with this vast difference in ideologies being displayed by the Presidential debate, from the tea party right to the far left and everything in between. There is disagreement on all kinds of things, but on this, all the citizens agree--the right, left, middle, far left, far right--because it is a fundamental freedom in America to use your dollars based on basic, accurate information. That is a basic freedom that a bunch of Senators on this floor want to take away. It is just wrong to take away the States' rights to answer that request, that need, that desire for information on GE ingredients and not to replace it with a national standard. That is just wrong. There are folks who say: Wait, I want to be on the side of science, and I don't think there is any kind of scientific information that there is any kind of disadvantage to GE products. Well, that is fundamentally wrong. If you think there are no disadvantages, it is because you don't want to know. There are benefits, and there are disadvantages. For example, recognize that this tool can be used in ways that produce some good results and some not so good results. That is why it is up to the consumer to decide how they want to use their dollars. On the good side, we can talk about golden rice. There are parts of the world that primarily eat rice. If they have a vitamin A deficiency, there is rice that can be grown that has been genetically modified to supply more vitamin A and makes for a healthier community. That is a positive. For example, sweet potatoes grown in South Africa are vulnerable to certain viruses, but they have been genetically modified to resist those viruses so there is more substantive food available to the community. As far as we know, there are no particular side effects, so that is a positive. There are some interesting ideas that occur about edible vaccine technology. This is an alternative to traditional vaccines, and they are working to have transgenic plants used for the production of vaccines that stimulate the human body's natural immune response. Wouldn't that be amazing if we could essentially inoculate against major diseases in the world through some type of GE, as long as there weren't side effects? Who knows, that may end up being a major benefit. Just as there are scientifically documented positives, there are scientifically documented negatives. For example, let's talk about our waterways. I put up a chart which shows that since the presentation or production of herbicide-resistant crops, the amount of herbicides put on crops in America has soared. We have gone from 7.4 million pounds in 1994 to 160 million pounds by 2012. It has gone up since. All of that glyphosate is basically being sprayed multiple times a year. It gets into the air, it gets into the plants, it gets into the runoff from the fields, and it goes into our waterways. It has an impact because it is a plant killer. That is what an herbicide is. It kills plants. If you put millions of pounds of herbicide into our rivers, it does a lot of damage. I will not go through all the studies that have noted this damage. Let me just explain that when you kill things at the base of the food chain, you change the entire food chain. This is true for micro- organisms in sea water, which we refer to as marine systems, and it is very true in micro-organisms in freshwater systems. Micro-organisms form the basis of food chains and provide ecological services. There are a bunch of studies that show the impact of all this plant-killing herbicide running into our rivers. It affects the soil too. Quite frankly, it even creates some potential for an impact on human health. Let me explain. Two-thirds of the air and rainfall samples tested in Mississippi and Iowa in 2007 and 2008 contain glyphosate. Those are rain samples and air samples, two-thirds of which contained this herbicide. Well, what we know is that not only do humans absorb some therefrom, but they also absorb some because of residuals in the food. A study published in the Journal of Environmental & Analytical Toxicology found that humans who consumed glyphosate-treated GMO foods have relatively high levels of glyphosate in their urine because it is in their bodies. We also know that glyphosate has been classified as a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization. Here we have a probable carcinogen present in such vast quantities-- present in the rain, present in the air, present in the residuals on the food. That is a legitimate concern to citizens. Does that mean that it is causing rampant outbreaks of cancer? No, I am not saying that. I am just saying there is a legitimate foundation for individual citizens to say: I am concerned about the runoff into our streams. I am concerned about the heavy application and its impact on local plants and animals. I am concerned about the possibility of absorption of anything that might contribute to cancer. That is the citizens' freedom to have those opinions. This is not a situation where Members of this body should say: We are smarter than they are, and we don't care that they have scientific concerns because, quite frankly, we want to suppress that information. We don't want to give them a choice. We don't want to let them know. It is just wrong. It is wrong to take away States' rights to provide such basic information and not have a consumer-friendly version at a national level. I will absolutely support a 50-State standard so there is no confusion and no cost of overlapping standards or difficulties in what food goes from what warehouse to what grocery store--absolutely support that--but don't strip States from doing something 9 out of 10 Americans care about and then proceed to bury that and not provide that information in the U.S. Senate. I encourage my colleagues: Simply say no to this Monsanto Deny Americans the Right to Know Act, the DARK Act. Simply say no. Stand up. Have some respect for this institution. This is a bill that never went through committee. Not a single phrase of this bill went to committee. This is a new creation put on the floor without juris, without consideration on committee, and no open amendment process. How many colleagues across the aisle cried foul over the past years when Democrats were in charge and didn't allow an amendment process? They insisted they would never vote for cloture unless there was a full amendment process that honored the ideas presented by different Senators. But there is no open amendment process here. So there we are--a bad process, mega influence by Monsanto and friends oppressing and stripping the freedom of American citizens. Let's not let that happen. I have a host of letters I was planning to read, but I see my colleague from Ohio is wanting to speak to this issue, and in fairness to all sides of this debate or ideas that he might want to present, I am going to stop here. If there is an opening later, I would like to return to the floor because of the calls and letters overwhelmingly from citizens stating they resent the Senators in this body trying to strip them of their right to know. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I wish to continue sharing some information about Monsanto and the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act that is on the Senate floor being debated right now. The reason I want to turn to this is this is such an egregious overreach of the Federal Government, stripping States of the right to respond to their citizens' desire for clear information, consumer- friendly information, on GE--genetically engineered--ingredients and stripping American citizens of the right to know. I have already gone through a number of the points that are important in this debate; that if you are going to eliminate the ability of States to provide consumer-friendly information on their label--which can be as simple as a tiny symbol or a letter such as Brazil uses--then there has to be a national standard that provides consumer-friendly information. Certainly, the hall of mirrors embedded in the DARK Act, which says consumers have to call call centers somewhere around the world and maybe they will eventually get an answer to their question about GE ingredients or they have to own a smartphone and have a data plan and take a picture of a computer code and give up some of their privacy in the process in order to try to find out this information or they have to guess where on social media the company has posted some information about the ingredients they have in their product--those three sets of components are completely unworkable, 100 percent unworkable. Ask yourself if that would be a logical remedy to people trying to find out about the calories in a product. Instead of finding out in one second, it could take them 10 minutes or, for that matter, an hour or they may never even get an answer on the end of that call center because the call center is too busy. The point is that 9 out of 10 Americans believe this information should be easily available on the label. I went through those numbers before. The numbers are basically the same for Republicans, basically the same for Democrats and Independents--slight variations. Throughout the ideological spectrum, this is something American citizens agree on. Along comes the Monsanto DARK Act and its proponents to say: We don't care that the American people have finally found something to agree on that goes to their core values about the right to know. We are going to stomp out their right to know because we simply don't work for the American people. We don't work for our constituents. We work for some powerful special interest. That is wrong. I hope the American citizens will let their Senators know it is wrong. They are certainly letting me know how they feel, and I thought I would share some of those with you, but before I do that, I had some inquiries about this situation of basically all citizens throughout the ideological spectrum sharing this same point of view--9 out of 10. Is it also true for gender and age? Let me share that. Specifically, there was a followup question which asked: Does a barcode work to provide information on the label or do you want a physical label stating that there are GE ingredients? Physical label versus this barcode--which people don't even know where it is on the package. It turns out again it is 90 percent. It is 88 percent of Democrats, 88 percent of Republicans, and 90 percent of Independents say: No, we want the physical label, not some mysterious label that we have to use our smartphone to interpret and give up some of our privacy. How about men and women--87 percent of men, 97 percent of women. How about younger and older--those who are less than 50 years old, 86 percent; those who are over 50 years old, 90 percent. Again, basically 9 out of 10 Americans, regardless of gender, regardless of age, regardless of ideology, say: No, this is a fundamental issue of American freedom, my freedom to exercise my choices based on basic information that should be on the label. Let's turn to some real constituents and some real letters so we are not just talking numbers. Bertha from Springfield writes: I urge you to vote against SB 2609 concerning labeling of foods that contain GMOs. Every American has the right to know what they are putting in their bodies. You were elected to represent all Oregonians and protect our rights, be assured I will check yours and every other representatives' voting records before I cast my votes in the future. Let's turn to Eli from Medford, OR: I want to hear you come out publicly against S. 2609. Please lead the fight to get GMOs clearly labeled without delay. Well, Eli, that is exactly what I am doing. I hadn't read your letter before I started speaking out strongly because I fundamentally believe we are here to represent our citizens--not to bow down to special interests--and this is as clear as it gets. This is as straightforward as it could possibly be. Let's turn to Ms. JC in Salem, OR: Please, I am requesting you NOT to support (S. 2609) (referred by some as the Dark Act) when it comes up for a vote in the Senate. I know the Senate Agricultural Committee voted 14-6 to pass the Dark Act S. 2609 last week. I believe the government should protect OUR RIGHT TO KNOW what's in our food. Please DO NOT VOTE to block GMO labeling. She goes on: Most European nations do not allow these types of food to be grown or sold in their countries. This should give you some information about how people in other countries view genetically modified foods. Please do not support this legislation. Your constituents will appreciate your support for their right to know what's in the foods we put on our plates to feed to our families. That is a very personal issue: what you are putting in your mouth, what you are putting on your family's table for your partner and your children. That is a very powerful issue, and here we have Senators who do not care and want to take away that right for something so close to people's hearts. Let's turn to Sheila in Pendleton, OR: I want to urge Senator Merkley to vote against the S. 2609, which would block mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. I urge the Senator to stand up for states' rights and individual rights to know. We have a right to know what is in our food so that we can make educated decisions about the food we eat. She continues: The free market can only work when consumers have the information they need to make informed choices. Contrary to what you hear from industry, GMO food labeling will not increase food prices. Companies frequently change labels for all sorts of reasons, without passing those costs on to consumers. Let me dwell on that point for a moment. It is completely reasonable not to have 50 different State standards that are conflicting, but what is unreasonable is to say that putting simple information on the label--consumer-friendly information--costs a dime because that label is printed at the same cost whether or not it includes a symbol that says ``This food contains GE ingredients.'' It doesn't cost any more to print the calories on the label, doesn't cost any more to put the vitamin D content, doesn't cost any more to print a symbol or a phrase or an asterisk indicating there are GE ingredients. So let's just be through with that argument that somehow there is a cost issue. Ronald from Medford writes: Oppose S. 2609, the anti-GMO labeling bill. Allow States to enact their own GMO labeling laws. And that is a point--States' rights. I hear all the time from colleagues here on this floor about States' rights, that the Federal Government should treat States as a laboratory to experiment with ideas, to see if they work, to perfect ideas that might be considered for national adoption. And isn't that exactly what Vermont is--a State laboratory that is implementing a bill on July 1? And we could all watch and see whether it works. On July 1, there will be no conflicting State standards because there is only one State involved--Vermont. So we don't have to have confusing labels going from different warehouses to different States because there is just one State putting forward a standard. So it is an opportunity for us to view that as a laboratory and see how it works. Other States might want to copy if it works well, or they might want a different version. Then the Senate could say: You know what, now we have conflicting State standards, and let's address the core issue, which is a consumer-friendly indication on the package, and get rid of the conflicting State standards. That would be a fair and appropriate role for this Senate to play. But to crush the only State laboratory that is about to come into existence in exchange for nothing but a hall of mirrors that does not give any reasonable opportunity for the consumer as a shopper to find out the information they need--the information they can get in 1 second by looking on the label but would instead take 10 minutes or 30 minutes or they may not even be able to get it at all while standing there in the grocery store looking at the very first product on their list. Joshua of Eugene says: Please support the public's right to know what food has GMO contained in it and work to defeat the DARK Act. Additionally, I fully support also the public's right to know where their food comes from, the country of origin, as well as what nutritional content is in all food eaten in restaurants. So he is suggesting that we should expand this conversation to restaurants. For now, let's talk about packaged foods. And he is also commenting on country of origin. I want to live in a nation where, if I choose to buy the produce grown in America, I get to buy the produce grown in America. I want to live in a nation where, if I choose to buy the meat raised in America and support American ranchers, I get to support American ranchers. It may simply be because I want to help out my fellow countrymen. It may be because I think they have superior produce or make a superior product, a type of meat. It may just be patriotism. But it should be my right to know where that food is grown. We have a law, country-of-origin labeling, that does exactly that because consumers want to know. It isn't about what steak to put in your mouth; it is about where the food was grown. It so happens that we are part of a trade agreement--the World Trade Organization--that says our labeling of where pork and beef are grown is a trade impediment. I couldn't disagree more. We have lost case after case in the WTO over this topic. Finally, we had to take country- of-origin labeling off of our beef and off of our pork. We haven't had to take it off our other meats, other produce. I hope we get to the point where we can fully restore our country-of-origin labeling because it matters to Americans. What kind of country are we when we don't even have the right to buy our fellow citizens' produce and our fellow citizens' meat? Talk about stripping away freedom. Yet here comes a group of Senators on this floor who want to further strip the rights of consumers. No wonder American citizens are angry with their government. No wonder they are angry specifically with Congress, that they rate us so unfavorably, below 10 percent. No wonder they are cynical because of things like this, where we ignore the fundamental desires of citizens and instead cave in to a powerful special interest. That is not the way it is supposed to be in the United States of America. Terry of Lake Oswego writes: GMO free food is information we need to have. I need the right to decide what to eat and feed my family. If the food industry want[s] to produce foods without meeting certain standards, using whatever they want to make their product, sell foods to us, what protection do we have? Do we really know the long term effects of altered food ingredients? Well, Terry, no, we don't know all the effects, but we do know there is a series of potential benefits and a series of problems. Those problems are the massive runoff of herbicide--which is a name for plant-killing chemicals--massive runoff of plant-killing chemicals into our streams. There are plants in our streams--algae, microorganisms-- that are the fundamental basis of the food chain, and that makes a difference. We do know this herbicide is classified as a potential human carcinogen by the World Health Organization. We also know those who eat GMO food end up with more glyphosate--that is herbicide--in their body. But it is up to you, Terry, to decide whether you have concerns about this. You should get to decide. No Senator can come to this floor, Terry, and say: I know better. I want to strip your ability to make a decision because I know everything. And you know what. I don't care about the scientific research; I just want to serve these powerful ad companies that don't want you to know. So too bad, Terry, and too bad to the 90 percent of Americans, 90 percent of Democrats, 90 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of Independents, 90 percent of women, 90 percent of men--I am rounding off but pretty close--90 percent of the young. Too bad for all of that because Senators here want to deny you the information on which to make the decision you are asking for. Gail of Portland, OR, says: Please do all you can to defeat S. 2609. It is my understanding that under this bill, it would be illegal for States to require GMO labeling, even though polls show that 93 percent of Americans support labeling efforts. Well, Gail, I don't have the poll you have that says 93 percent of Americans support labeling, but I do have this poll done in November 2015 by a reputable pollster that says 89 percent. So let's take your 93 percent and let's take this poll's 89 percent and just agree that basically 9 out of 10 Americans want this information on the product. And when asked if they want it in the form of a mysterious barcode that compromises their privacy if they use it--they don't even know why it is on the product--or they want it in terms of a simple statement or symbol, they want the simple statement or symbol. So, Gail, thank you for your letter. William of Chemult, OR, said: I was distressed to learn that the Senate Agriculture Committee last week approved the voluntary GMO labeling. . . . This would be a disaster if it became law. As your constituent, I'm writing to ask you to oppose this and any other scheme that would make GMO labeling voluntary. William, I am sorry to report that it is even worse than voluntary because an actual label is banned by this bill. A State cannot put a real label or symbol on the product. Instead, this is the anti-label bill. It says you have to put on things so the customer can't see there are GE ingredients. It has banned putting clear, simple, consumer- friendly information on the product. Instead, it proposes a wild goose chase where you have to call some call center somewhere, some 800 number somewhere and hope that you can get through the phone tree; hope that eventually they will stop saying: Because of call volume, it will be another 30 minutes before we can talk to you; hope that somehow when you get to that call center, it is not staffed by folks who speak the English language with such an accent that you don't even understand what they are saying or they do not understand what you are saying. It is even worse, William, because they want to put a barcode on as a substitute, with no indication for the purpose of this barcode, so that it is just a mystery. Why is this there? I don't know. Does this tell you about their upcoming products? Does this tell you about advertisements for discounts if you take your smartphone and you snap on this? Because the only way that barcode has value--and every Senator in this room knows this fact--it only has value if you tell the consumer why that barcode is on the package. If it says ``This product has GE ingredients. For details, scan this bar code,'' then that is a valuable contribution, but without that indication, this is just another wild goose chase taking customers on a crazy adventure with no real information when they could have had a symbol that in 1 second answered their question. And, William, it gets worse. If you can believe it, it gets worse, because under this voluntary standard, what counts as a nonlabel--not only a 1-800 number or a barcode or a computer code of some sort--what also counts is putting something in social media somewhere. Well, what social media? There are a hundred different social media companies. How are you possibly supposed to discover, even if you wanted to, what the information is on that product? All of this is designed, William, to prevent you from getting the information you want right on the package with a simple little symbol-- not a symbol that is pejorative, not a symbol that is scary--chosen by the FDA just to give you the information. Brazil uses a ``t'' in a triangle. That would be fine. It doesn't really matter what the symbol is because citizens who want to know can find out that indicates there are GE ingredients. But, no, that would be giving you information, and the goal of the Monsanto Deny Americans the Right to Know Act is to prevent you from getting information. I want to turn to Anna in Beaverton, OR. Anna says: I wanted to ask that you share with your colleagues that this bill is insulting to the intelligence of Americans, limits citizens the right to make safe choices when purchasing food; hamstrings diet and medical professionals who treat, among other things, food allergies and therefore could result in an allergic person ingesting a food fraction that could result in a serious, even fatal, allergic reaction. Here is the point: This bill is an insult to the intelligence of Americans. Anna, you have this right. This is about Senators who do not respect your intelligence, who do not honor your right to make a decision as a consumer. They know that this is an incredibly popular idea to put a symbol or phrase on a package to indicate it has key ingredients because citizens want to know. The Members here know this, and they don't care because they want to make the decision for you. They do not want to allow you freedom to make your own choices. They do not consider you to be an adult. They want to treat you like a child who is fed only the information they want to give you. So, Anna, I am deeply disturbed about this insulting legislation that tears down the intelligence of our American citizens, that says to the 9 out of 10 Americans in every State in this Union that we want to strip away your ability to make your own choice. Keri from Eugene writes: ``Why are we protecting large conglomerates and processed food companies instead of protecting the American people and the land?'' Well, that is a good question, Keri. I suppose it is because these companies make huge donations under the constitutional decisions of our Supreme Court. It is a very interesting story about the evolution of our country. When our forefathers got together to draft the Constitution, they had a vision of citizens having an equal voice. That decision was somewhat flawed, as we all know--flaws we corrected over time related to race, related to gender. But the fundamental principle was that citizens got to have an equal voice. What they pictured was this: They pictured a town commons, which cost nothing to participate in, and each citizen could get up and share their view in that town commons, could share their view before the town voted, or could share that view equally with the person representing them in Congress. This is what Thomas Jefferson called the mother principle--that we are only a republic to the degree that the decisions we make reflect the will of the people. He said for that to happen, the citizens have to have an equal voice. Those are the words he used: ``equal voice'' and ``mother principle.'' Lincoln talked about the same thing: equal voice as the foundation of our Nation. So when you ask the question, Keri, about why are we protecting large conglomerates at the expense of where the American people stand, you have to go back 40 years ago to a case called Buckley v. Valeo. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court stood this principle--the mother principle of equal voice--on its head because now we have a commons that is for sale. The commons is the television. The commons is the radio. The commons is the information on Web sites. They basically said that Americans could buy as much of that commons as they want. So instead of an equal voice, Jefferson's mother principle, we instead have a completely unequal voice. Those with fabulous wealth have the equivalent of a stadium sound system, and they use it to drown out the voice of ordinary Americans. Then a couple of years ago, on a 5-to-4 decision of the Supreme Court, they doubled down on the destruction of our ``We the People'' Nation. They tore those three words out of the start of our Constitution, and they did so by saying: You know what. We are going to allow the board members of a corporation to utilize their owners' money for the political purposes that the board wants to use, and they don't have to even inform the owners of the company that they are using their money for these political purposes. So we have this vast concentration of power in corporations because corporations are large. If they have a small board, the board says: We want to influence politics in this fashion, and we don't even have to tell the owners about it. So that is a hugely additional destructive force on top of Buckley v. Valeo. There is nothing in the Constitution that comes close to saying that corporations are people, and there certainly is nothing that says a few people who sit in the decisionmaking capacity should be able to take other people's money and spend it for their own political purposes. It was never envisioned. Between these decisions over several decades, we have destroyed the very premise of our Constitution, Thomas Jefferson's mother principle, that we are only a republic to the degree that we reflect the will of the people. That is the best I can do, Keri, to explain how it is possible that this bill, which flies in the face of 9 out of 10 Americans, has made it to this floor. This bill didn't go through committee. We have leadership in this body that pledged regular order. They were going to put things through committee and bring bills to the floor that had been passed by committee. But this hasn't been. That is how much, as Keri put it, ``large conglomerates'' are influencing what happens here in this Senate. Judith of Grants Pass says: Please do NOT support [this bill] that would block states from requiring labels on genetically modified foods. People have a right to know [whether or not they are considered safe]. She is right. She is absolutely right. It is whether or not there they are considered safe. This isn't a scientific debate. There is science of concerns--science that I have laid out here on the floor. There is also science about benefits. But that is not the issue. The issue is a citizen's right to make their own decision. If they are concerned about the massive increase in herbicides and the destruction it does to the soil, they have a right to exercise that in the marketplace. If they are concerned about the massive amount of runoff of herbicides affecting the basic food chains in our streams and rivers, they have that right. If they are concerned about the fact that there has been some movement of genes from crops to related weeds that then become resistant to herbicides, that is their business. If they are concerned that Bt corn is producing superbugs resistant to the pesticide, that is their business. These are not phantom ideas or phantom concerns. These are scientifically documented concerns. None of this says it is unsafe to put in your mouth. I hear that all the time: Well, it is not unsafe to put these GE things in your mouth. But here is the thing: That isn't the basis on which we label. We label things people care about, and there are implications to how things are grown and their impact. For example, we have a Federal law that says grocery stores have to label the difference between wild fish and farmed fish. Why is that? Well, there are implications to what happens in different types of farms, and citizens are given a heads-up by this law, and they can decide. They can look into it and see if it is a concern. They may not be at all concerned about how catfish are raised in a farm setting, but they may be very concerned about how salmon are raised in farm settings because we find there are some bad effects of salmon raised in pens in the ocean that transfer disease to wild salmon. That is their right. They get to look into that. We give them that ability by requiring this information be on the package. I don't hear anyone in this Chamber standing up right now and saying they want to strip our packages of the information of wild fish versus farmed fish. We have basic information on packages regarding whether juice is fresh or whether it is created from concentrate because citizens care about the difference. So we give them this basic information to facilitate their choice. And that is the point: We facilitate their choice. Kimberly writes in: I am writing you today to urge you to vote no on . . . [anything that would] block Vermont's . . . [bill]. The right to know what we eat is critical. Richard from Portland writes: ``I urge you to filibuster, if need be, to stop the `Dark Act.''' Well, I would like to do that, Richard. I would like to do anything I can to slow this down so the American people know what is going on. But here is the level of cynicism in this Chamber: Last night, when the majority leader filed this bill, which has never gone through committee, he simultaneously filed a petition to close debate. Under the rules of the Senate, that means, after an intervening day, there is going to be a vote, and there is no way that my speaking here day and night can stop it because it is embedded in the basic rules. However, I can try to come to this floor several times and lay out these basic arguments and hope to wake up America to what is being plotted and planned in this Chamber right now. So that is what I am trying to do. I hope that it will have an impact. I hope that when the vote comes tomorrow morning after this intervening day--Tuesday being the intervening day--that my colleagues will say this is just wrong-- stripping from Americans the right to know something 9 out of 10 Americans want, stripping States of the ability to respond to their citizens' desires, shutting down a single State laboratory in Vermont when there is no conflict on labels at this point because only one State is implementing a law. I hope that they will say: You know what. This should be properly considered in committee. This bill should be in committee. It should be given full opportunity when it does come to the floor--and I assume it would--to be openly amended so that anyone who wants to put forward an amendment would be able to do so. That is the way the Senate used to work. When I was here as an intern in 1976, I was asked to staff the Tax Reform Act of that year. I sat up in the staff gallery. At that point there was no television on this floor; therefore, nobody outside this room could track what was going on. There were no cell phones. There was no other way to convey what was occurring. So the staff sat up in the staff gallery, and when a vote was called, you would go down the staircase to the elevator just outside here. You would meet your Senator, and you would brief your Senator on the debate that was happening on that amendment. That is what I did--amendment after amendment, day after day. Then, as soon as that amendment was voted on, there would be a group of Senators seeking recognition of the Presiding Officer, and you would hear everyone simultaneously go, ``Mr. President,'' because the rule is that the Presiding Officer is supposed to recognize the very first person he or she hears, and so everyone tried to be first the moment that an amendment was done, the moment the vote was announced. Well, with all those people simultaneously seeking the attention of the Chair, it is really impossible for the Chair to sort out exactly who is speaking first. So they call on someone on the left side of the Chamber, and then, when that amendment was done an hour later--because they would debate it for an hour and hold the vote; when the vote was done, they called on somebody on the right side of the Chamber. They worked it back and forth so that everyone got to have their amendment heard. That is an open amendment process. I have heard many of my colleagues across the aisle call for that kind of process when the Democrats were in charge, and I support that kind of process. I supported it when I was in the majority; I support it when I am in the minority. Everything I have proposed or talked about to make this Senate Chamber work better as a legislative body I have supported consistently, whether I am in the majority or whether I am in the minority. So here is the thing. We have the opposite of that right now. We don't have the Senate of the 1970s, where Senators honor their right to debate and have an open amendment process. That would really change this. That would provide an opportunity for all viewpoints to be heard. We would never have had a cloture motion filed within seconds of the bill first being put on the floor, and it would have been incredibly rare for a bill that had not gone through committee to be put on the floor. We have to reclaim the legislative process, and right now we don't have it. So that is a great reason to vote no tomorrow morning. Voting no tomorrow morning is the right vote if you believe in States' rights. It is the right vote if you believe in the consumers' right to know, the citizens' right to know. And it is the right vote if you believe we shouldn't have a process in this Chamber that just jams through something for a powerful special interest at the expense of the 9 or 10 Americans who want this information. So tomorrow, colleagues, let's turn down this insult to the intelligence of Americans, this assault on States' rights, this deprivation, this attack on the freedom of our citizens. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. I thank the Chair. Imagine these are products that are in the grocery store. So I, the consumer, am going down the aisle, and I say: I want to know whether these contain high fructose corn syrup. Well, I turn it over and look at the ingredients, and I see that one does. Looking at this one: No, this one doesn't. Let me check the third. It is right here. I have the answer. I have checked three products in 5 seconds. That is consumer friendly. But let's say we have to call the 1-800 number to find out. I ask unanimous consent to use my cell phone as a visual aid.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise to address the motion that is on the floor right now, which is a motion to adopt an amendment that is essentially a new version of the Monsanto DARK Act. Now, DARK is an acronym that stands for ``Denying Americans the Right to Know.'' This is, by the way, an amendment that has not been seen in any committee in the Senate ever. We heard a lot of discussion about how we were going to have a process in this Chamber where things would be in the ordinary fashion-- go through the committee so it could be digested and analyzed--but instead this amendment is to an underlying bill that has been ping- ponging back and forth between the House and Senate. This legislation has never been heard in committee. It was crafted over the last few hours. Here we are with a fundamental issue of citizens' right to know, and the majority leader of this Chamber has decided to bypass any ordinary consideration to jam this through on behalf of Monsanto. What is at stake here? What is citizens' right to know about? It is about genetically modified or genetically engineered ingredients that are in their food. Across the country 90 percent of Americans want to have some indication of what is in their food and whether there are GE ingredients. They feel this is relevant to what they would like to buy. Even if they don't personally look it up when they buy a product, they feel citizens should have a right to know. I rounded it off and said 90 percent, but it is actually 89 percent. The survey took place last fall. I believe it took place in November of 2015. This fundamental notion about the right to know what is in your food transcends every ideology in our country. The Presidential primary season is going on right now, and we are seeing a huge range of ideologies from the left to the right on display, but when we talk to citizens about this right to know, it doesn't matter if they are Democrats, Independents, Republicans, rightwing Republicans or leftwing Democrats, they all come out essentially the same. Let's break it down by each party. Democrats are at 9 to 1, or 92 percent; Republicans are at 84 percent, which rounds out to about 8\1/2\ Republicans to 1 Republican. It is a huge ratio. Independents are 9 to 1, or 89 percent. When asked if they feel strongly about this, they say, yes, they do feel strongly about this. That just goes to the fundamental notion that here in America citizens believe they have the right to make up their own minds and not have the overreach of the Federal Government telling them what to believe or the government saying: You can't have the information you want in order to make your decision as a consumer. Citizens resent that. Citizens get angry about that. Yet right now the majority party in this Chamber is trying to push through just such a repression of a citizen's right to know. This has been triggered by a law in Vermont. Citizens in Vermont voted and decided they want to know if their food has GE, genetically engineered, ingredients, and that law goes into effect on July 1 of this year. Our big food industry--Monsanto and friends--said: No, we can't let the citizens of Vermont have the information they want. We must pass a Federal law to stop them. By the way, we need to stop every other State in the United States of America and every other subdivision of any State in the United States of America from providing this information, which 9 out of 10 Americans want to have listed on their food. We are all acquainted with labels on food. That is not something new. Some citizens look at it to determine how many calories are in the food. Others look at what vitamins may be in the food or if it meets the daily recommended dose of vitamins. Some go to see if it has a form of cornstarch, corn sugar, or high fructose corn syrup that maybe they like or don't like. We also have labeling laws about other things consumers care about on their food. If you sell fish in a grocery store in America, you have to tell the consumer whether that fish has been caught in the wild or whether it has been raised on a farm. Why? Because citizens wanted that information. They considered that relevant to their decision about their purchase of foods for themselves and their families. Let's consider the fact that here in America if you put juice in a store, you have to say whether it is made from concentrate or whether it is fresh. Why? Because consumers thought that was relevant to how they would like to exercise their judgment. Well, 9 out of 10 Americans say they want the information on whether there are GE ingredients, but now we have this bill on the floor--this Monsanto DARK Act addition 2.0--that says, no, we are going to take away that power from every State in the country, not just Vermont, not just my home State of Oregon but every State. We are going to take it away from any subdivision of those States. We are going to black out that information so consumers can't have it. Here is the question we face: Are we going to hold a vote this week in this Chamber, as scheduled by the majority leader for Wednesday, to shut down debate on this topic? The majority leader didn't allow debate today because he just introduced the bill tonight and he just set the schedule for tomorrow. We are not going to have the debate until 2:15 p.m. tomorrow, and he said we are going to vote on Wednesday morning on this critical issue affecting citizens' right to know. So on behalf of Monsanto and friends, he wants to make sure there are only a few hours of debate and that the citizens of our country don't even know this dirty deed is being done in this Chamber. That is why I am speaking right now, because it is important for the citizens to know this is being rammed through right now at a time when it is most likely not going to gain public attention. Why is that? Why did the majority leader do this on a Monday night right before the five big primaries that occur tomorrow? Because the news media is very busy covering those five big primaries. Who is going to win the Republican primary in Florida that will affect, one way or another, whether a Member in this Chamber stays in the race? Who will win the Republican primary in Ohio? That is possibly going to affect whether the frontrunner gets a majority by the time the convention comes up. Who is going to win the Democratic primary in Illinois? Who is going to win the Democratic primary in Ohio? That will have a big impact on the rhythm of that. So the media is very consumed and very busy, and that is why here, on the eve of this major Tuesday primary, this bill has been put on the floor. Americans have no idea it is happening. They can ram this thing through with no notice to the American people because, again, this bill was never considered in committee. This is a whole new creature--this Monsanto DARK Act 2.0. What specifically does it do and how has it morphed? Well, this is very interesting. This act says States are banned from providing information that 9 out of 10 of their citizens want. It says subdivisions are banned from providing information that 9 out of 10 of their citizens want, and then it says there will be a voluntary program, and if, after a series of years, citizens can get information based on consumer inquiries, then this ban will continue forever. If they can't get the information on 70 percent of the major foods that are being sold, then all that is required is a response to consumer inquiries. In other words, no labeling requirement, no simple fashion for a consumer to find out what is in their food. If we put a ban on States from providing easy-to-use consumer information about GM or GE ingredients, then there must be a national consumer easy-to-use indication on the label. The argument is put forward--and I share it--that 50 different State standards would be confusing and expensive and almost impossible to implement. One warehouse serves multiple States and so on and so forth. Having a different label in every State makes no sense. OK. I take that point. But if we are going to ban the States from providing the information consumers want on the argument that there should be one national standard for simplicity, then there must be a consumer- friendly national standard, and there is no such standard in this Monsanto DARK Act 2.0 placed on the floor tonight. There is an interesting twist here because they have proposed some ideas that are different from putting consumer-friendly information on the label. The first of those ideas is a 1-800 number. It works like this. Let's say, like my daughter, you are interested in high fructose corn syrup. I am going to use this book here as a visual aid, and I ask unanimous consent to do so.

Mr. MERKLEY. So now I have to pull my cell phone out of my pocket, and I have to find this number that is probably too small for me to read. I have to turn on my phone and hope there is a cell connection in the store, which there may or may not be. I dial it up. Oh, I am talking to somebody in the Philippines, and they have no idea what I am asking about. Oh, I am talking to some call center somewhere else, and they have all kinds of information, but they are not sure exactly what my question is about GE ingredients. And maybe I have to wait 15 minutes while I am on hold. We have all had that experience. Every one of us has had the experience of not just waiting 15 minutes; we call a consumer help line or maybe a 1-800 number and maybe it is half an hour. They give you a little message: We are sorry, we have a high call volume and we just can't get to you yet, but we will get back to you in maybe 30 or 40 minutes. I am standing here in the aisle. I want to compare these three products. I have to call three different 800 numbers. I ask, can anyone on this floor stand up and say this is a consumer-friendly way to answer the fundamental question as to whether there is a GE or GM--genetically engineered or genetically modified-- ingredient? No. This is absurd. This is a sham. That is why it is sham No. 1. But there is not just one sham in this bill; there are more. The second sham is a computer code. So picture this: Instead of being able to pick up a product and say ``I want to see if this has peanuts in it; I am allergic to peanuts,'' I can check my second product. Oh, here it is. I check the third product. No, no peanuts. I am allergic to peanuts. In 5 seconds, I have checked three products. That is consumer friendly. But now this second sham is that I have to have a smartphone with me. I have to take a picture of this code called a quick response code, and that will take me to a Web site, and maybe I will find out the information in the format presented by the company itself, which will probably be completely incomprehensible and indigestible. All I wanted to know was whether there is a GM ingredient. But now I have to take a picture. I have to go to a Web site. I have to negotiate the information on the Web site. All I needed was a little symbol right here. It doesn't matter what the symbol is. It could be ``GM.'' It could be ``GE.'' It could be a ``t'' for transgenic. That is what Brazil uses. It could be a happy face. Just anything so that consumers knew what that symbol stood for. That would allow them to check it very quickly and very easily. A QR code is even more diabolical because when you use your phone to take a picture of this and go to that Web site, they track some of your information. You have to give up your privacy. I have to give up my privacy to find out if there is a GE ingredient in the food I am eating? No. No way. No how. Just wrong. An invasion, an overreach of the Federal Government asking me to give up my privacy by having to take a picture of this. Envision now whether this is really practical in any way. Not only might it take half an hour to go through those three different QR codes and find out what they really mean, but I am shopping for groceries. This is just one item I want to buy. I want to buy a can of soup. That is what I want to do. But I have 20 more things on my list. I go to the second thing. Maybe I want to buy hot dogs, and now there are 10 different versions of hot dogs. What am I going to do--take a picture of all 10 hot dogs for my second item on the list? Now I am 2 hours into my shopping trip. I have a child in the grocery cart who is hungry and who is tired and who wants to go home. I want to go home. I want to get home and cook dinner for myself and my family. I have to spend 2 hours to check out two products on my grocery shopping list. This is a complete sham. There is even more to come. This is sham No. 3 that is in the Monsanto Protection Act, Monsanto DARK Act--Denying Americans the Right to Know--2.0. Here is a wonderful idea. This says a company can provide information via social media, as in Facebook or Twitter or who knows what--Instagram. So here I am now. Picture this. This really takes the cake. I am in the store. I care about GE ingredients, and I check product No. 1 for their 800 number, but they don't have an 800 number, or they have it but it is not for this purpose because this company has done their voluntary disclosure not through the 800 number. So I think, well, am I supposed to take a picture of the smart code? I look for it. Maybe I find one. I take a picture, I go to the Web site, but no information is there because this company has decided to do voluntary disclosure through social media. Well, which social media? I am supposed to know if they are putting it up on Facebook or if they are supposed to be putting it on Instagram or on Twitter? No, because they can put it anywhere they want. So here we have a completely unworkable system in every possible way. In other words, all three of these ideas were put into this bill solely for the pretense that there is some form of disclosure to consumers. Now, why would the author of this bill that was put on the floor tonight go to this tremendous effort to have this pretense about disclosure? Well, let's go back to where I started. The reason for the pretense is that 9 out of 10 Americans want to know. So this is a scam on the American people. Right now, citizens in our country are very angry. They are very upset. We have gone through four decades in which the middle class has been squeezed, and they know they are getting the short end of the stick. They know that our national wealth has grown enormously but nothing is shared with the middle class. They know the system is rigged. And here comes our majority leader to put a bill on the floor that further rigs the system with this Monsanto DARK Act edition 2.0. So citizens across the country, this is being done to take away your rights when you are not paying attention because we are in the middle of a major primary tomorrow. So if you are aware of this Monsanto DARK Act 2.0 being on the floor right now and that there is going to be a vote on it on Wednesday morning, then weigh in and say it is not all right. Share with other Americans on your social media and say that this sham disclosure bill is not OK, that taking away the desire and right of 9 out of 10 Americans to want to know if there is GE ingredients in their food--taking away that right is a complete travesty. This is the type of overreach that makes citizens mad. This is the type of jam-through legislation on behalf of a powerful special interest to take away what citizens care about that makes people mad. My colleagues across the aisle know that, so they want to jam this through in the dark of night when the country is not paying attention. That is simply not OK. It is not OK. Some may say: What is the big deal here? Aren't genetically engineered products all wonderful, and why would any citizen actually be concerned about them? Why do these 9 out of 10 citizens have this desire? They are just misled. There is no concern about GE ingredients. We are just taking away their right because they don't know what they are talking about. Their concerns are not legitimate. Well, I will tell my colleagues tonight that their concerns are legitimate. Genetic engineering can produce a benefit and it can produce problems, and therefore it is the citizens' right to be able to make the evaluation of how they want to spend their dollar, just as it is their right if they want to buy reconstituted juice versus fresh juice, just as it is their right if they want to buy wild fish rather than farmed fish, just as it is their right if they don't want to buy food with high fructose corn syrup, or maybe they do want to buy it, but they get to choose. They get to look at the ingredients and the labeling and they get to choose. Let me expand a little bit on this because science has provided us with both an accounting of some of the benefits and an accounting of some of the problems. Science indicates that there is some truth in both. For example, let's take one of the benefits. This is a picture of golden rice. Well, what is golden rice? In parts of the world, citizens suffer from a big deficiency of vitamin A. Therefore, this rice has been genetically engineered to have vitamin A in it, and it can, in parts of the world where rice is routinely eaten, help address that. Folks have said that is a good thing. Now, I don't know all the reverberations of cultivating this type of rice versus another type of rice. There might be a problem hidden away in those different cultivation techniques. But by and large, I have heard positive things about golden rice helping address a vitamin deficiency. Let's take transgenic carrots. Their cells have been cultivated in order to provide a substance that provides a cure to Gaucher's disease. So that seems like a benefit because people who suffer from Gaucher's disease are awfully happy about having a remedy. Let's take yams grown in South Africa. Well, they have several different viruses that affect these yams, and so by genetically engineering to resist these viruses, as far as I am aware, we don't know yet of any side effects that are a problem. As of now, this can be something that is generally registered as a benefit, to have that resistance to these viruses. There is even discussion of genetic modifications that can be done that serve in lieu of immunizations. That is a very interesting scientific idea. That could be a way to provide resistance to humans with certain diseases. That is only part of the story. Just as science has documented that there are benefits, there are also some concerns. Here in the United States, the major genetic modification is something called Roundup Ready. It makes a particular plant immune to the effects of an herbicide. Herbicides kill the plants, so this makes the plant immune to the substance that kills plants. Therefore, you can use this herbicide to control weeds without killing the corn or without killing sugar beets or without killing the cotton, and so forth. (Mr. DAINES assumed the Chair.) So what have we seen? Since this genetically engineered quality was developed, we have seen a massive increase in the use of herbicides on crops. It has gone from 7.4 million pounds back in 1994 to now over 160 million pounds. We see this massive increase and its continued path to 2012. One of the effects is that if you have this massive 160 million pounds of herbicide on fields that weren't there 20 years earlier, what you have is a lot of runoff of herbicide into our streams and into our rivers. When you put plant-killing stuff in our streams and rivers, it has an impact on the ecosystem. That is a scientifically documented legitimate concern. There is another concern. When we tilled fields to take down the weeds, it was mechanical, and in that disturbed soil grew a variety of things and the edges of fields grew a variety of things. One example is milkweed. It has been scientifically documented that there is a big reduction in these miscellaneous weeds and some of the related insects and species that otherwise would have inhabited that area near these fields. One example is the monarch butterfly. The monarch butterfly has crashed in the Midwest because of the dramatic reduction in milkweed with a change from mechanical tilling to herbicide control of weeds. That is just the canary in the coal mine--or the monarch in the coal mine. We don't know what else is being affected by this massive application of herbicides. Here is another challenge. This is an interesting genetic modification. This is called Bt corn. Bt corn has been genetically modified so it produces a pesticide inside each corn cell, and particularly the goal is that when the larvae of these beetles start eating, the pesticide would kill the larvae of these beetles. These larvae are referred to as the ``western corn worm.'' The western corn worm does a lot of damage, and you put the pesticide inside the cells. Both the larvae and the beetles themselves like to eat the corn. They like to eat the strands of pollen that pollinate the corn. What can end up is corn that has only a few kernels on them. There is a greatly reduced amount of kernels as a result of the pollen being compromised. What is happening as a result of the prevalence of this Bt corn which is grown all over the United States? What is happening is that these larvae of the corn worms and beetles are developing a resistance to it because Mother Nature has a few surprises. At any one moment in a large population, there are thousands or millions of accidental mutations occurring. Out of those mutations, when millions and millions of these beetles and their larvae are exposed, eventually a few of them have a mutation that makes them immune to the pesticide. Then they proceed to have offspring, and then the offspring have more mutations and become more resistant. Suddenly, you now have to go back and put pesticides in these fields, even though there is a pesticide produced in each cell of the corn itself. That type of biofeedback is scientifically documented. That is a concern. There is an impact on creating what is sometimes called superweeds through herbicides and superbugs that are pesticide-resistant through the massive application of Bt GE engineering. This chart is just a reference to the problem in the waterways that I have already spoken to, so I don't think I need to repeat that. If there are advantages or benefits and there are scientifically documented problems, shouldn't it be up to the consumer to decide if they want to buy a product with genetically engineered ingredients? They are not stupid. They are not crazy. They have not invented some concerns. There are legitimate, scientifically documented benefits and legitimate scientifically documented concerns. So it should be up to the consumer. We tell consumers: Hey, you have thoughts about whether you would rather have wild fish or farm-raised fish, for example. Why do we require that? I will give you an example from the Pacific Northwest. In the Pacific Northwest a lot of salmon are raised in ocean pens. Those are farmed fish. They are very close together, and because they are very close together, they develop more diseases. There is a type of sea lice that becomes prevalent. Also, because they are not eating the same stuff wild fish eat, their meat is white, so they have to be fed a dye to make their meat the same color as wild salmon. There are folks who hear that and say: I have a preference. I would rather have farmed fish because they are cheaper, or I would rather have wild fish because I don't like the way farmed fish is raised. Maybe one likes the idea of supporting the wild fishing industry rather than the farm fishing industry. That is why we require the disclosure. So it should be a citizen's right to know. Right now here is where we are with this issue being jammed through in the middle of the night on behalf of a very powerful special interest, even though 9 out of 10 Americans don't agree. Well, let's ask the Presidential candidates where they stand--each and every candidate, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders from the Democratic side, Mr. Trump, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Cruz, and Mr. Kasich on the Republican side: Where do you stand on this issue that is going to be voted on Wednesday morning in this Chamber? Do you stand with the 9 out of 10 Americans who want the right to know whether there are GE ingredients in their food? Do you stand with the people, or do you stand with the powerful special interests that want American citizens to be kept in the dark? This is very relevant. Folks voting tomorrow in five primaries, in Florida, Illinois--whatever the other three are tomorrow--they want to know where the Presidential candidates stand. Are they going to be the type of leader who stands with the people, or are they going to be the type that wants to approve and say it is OK to slam this Deny Americans the Right to Know Act 2.0--this Monsanto act. It is all right to slam it through with no committee consideration in the dark of night when the country is not paying attention because of the big set of primaries tomorrow. I want to know where they stand. So I say to these candidates on the Republican side and the Democratic side: Call us up. Tell us where you stand. Call my office: 202-224-3753. I will let the rest of the Senate know where you stand. We will make sure everyone knows whether you, the Presidential candidates, stand with the citizens of America and the right to know or whether you stand with the powerful special interests that want to strip States' rights to inform their citizens about information that they want. I want to know from the Presidential candidates: Do you believe that the Federal Government should strip States of the ability to label, even if their labels are all consistent with each other? Do you think that is OK? Do you care about States' rights? Do you see States as a laboratory where we can experiment with ideas and see if they work or not? Right now Vermont is a laboratory. On July 1 they are going to have their first labeling law in the country, and that is an experiment that their citizens wanted, consistent with 9 out of 10 Americans who want to know. They responded; Vermont responded. They are the first State in the Union to do so. Are we going to cut that short? We are going to trash that ability of Vermont to conduct this experiment? We are going to stomp on the citizens' rights to know, not just in Vermont but in Oregon, Montana, Florida, and all 50 States, and throw in a few U.S. territories as well? Now the argument is made that this is very dangerous because there could be multiple States that produce different standards. But that doesn't exist. There will not be multiple States in July. There is only one State that has a bill. So it is a phony argument to say that this is somehow causing big, expensive problems because there are conflicting State standards, because there are no conflicting State standards. It is just one great State that responded to its citizens' desires. Who are we to stop that experiment now? We should endorse that experiment. We should endorse that State laboratory. We should watch to see how well it works. We know citizens want this and that they care a lot. So why take it away just because Monsanto and friends don't want Americans to know? How many Members here want to go home to their citizens and say: You know what, I represent all of us here in our State of Iowa or our State of Florida or our State of Montana or our State of Oregon--my home State--and it is OK with me if the Federal Government takes away your rights on something you really care about. That is what this Chamber is poised to do. That is why they are doing it in the dark of night, because the Senators who are here who are prepared to vote for the Monsanto DARK Act 2.0 don't want their citizens to know about it. That is why they have encouraged the strategy of putting it on the Senate floor on Monday night right before the big Tuesday primary, because citizens care a lot about knowing what they put in their mouth, and they care a lot about what they feed to their children. It is not simply whether it will make them sick. They care about the implications about the way different food is raised. When we talk about the difference between farmed fish and wild fish, it doesn't have anything to do with what is going to poison you. It isn't even necessarily the taste. The taste may be similar. It is about the citizens' concerns about the way the harvesting is done, about the way the crop is grown, the produce is grown. When we talk about the difference between constituted juice and we require disclosure, the difference between fresh juice and concentrated juice, it isn't because it is going to poison us when we put in our bodies, it is because citizens care about the process that got them to the product they are about to buy. They care about this, too. They care about it--Democrats, 92 percent; Republicans, 84 percent; Independents, 89 percent. In this deeply divided country, when 9 out of 10 folks--Independents, Democrats, or Republicans--all say it is important, shouldn't we honor that? Shouldn't we not trounce on their rights? Shouldn't we not suppress the first State pilot project on something that 9 out of 10 citizens across the spectrum agree on? Yet that is the dirty deed this Chamber is planning for Wednesday morning. It is just wrong. I am deeply disturbed about what has become of our ``we the people'' Nation. What are those beautiful first three words of our Constitution? If you ask that in any townhall in America, the crowd at the townhall will respond: ``We the People.'' Those words are carved in our hearts because the core principle on which this Nation was founded is that we would establish a republic where the decisions would be of, by, and for the people. But this vote on Wednesday morning is not of, by, and for the people; it is of, by, and for Monsanto and friends because they want to take away what we the people care about-- the right to know whether there are GE ingredients in their food. Each of us came to Congress and we pledged to uphold our responsibilities under the Constitution. I would have to assume that each and every one of the 100 Senators on this floor had actually read the Constitution. I certainly hope every Senator on this floor knows it starts out ``We the People,'' and I hope they understand why. After President Jefferson was out of office, he talked about the mother principle of our Republic, and that is that the decisions will serve the people. He talked about how for that to happen for each citizen, there has to be an equal voice. You can imagine the vision of the town square and that there is no charge for standing in the town square and expressing your opinion. It is free. But every citizen gets to stand and have their say with an equal voice before a vote is taken. That is the equal voice President Jefferson talked about. That is the equal voice concept President Lincoln talked about, that understanding that each citizen would have a proportionate equal voice. That was embedded in our Founders' minds. They hadn't yet envisioned a world in which the town square is now for sale. The town square is now for sale. The town square is television, radio. You have to buy ads on it, and it is expensive. So you have to pay to stand and make your point. And those with the most money get to stand up for a longer period of time than those with little money. Those with the most money get to purchase the equivalent of a stadium sound system to drown out the voice of ordinary people. Here is what I want to know: On Wednesday morning, is this Chamber going to respond to those with those stadium sound systems and proceed to drown out the voice of the people? Let's put up that 89 percent chart. This is the choice of the people--Democrats, Republicans, Independents who care about this. Wednesday morning, are we going to drown out their desires on behalf of the powerful special interests? Are we going to stamp out States' rights on behalf of a powerful special interest? Let's not do that. Let's not go in that shameful direction, that direction which is completely contrary to the principles that founded this Nation of an equal voice, a nation, as Lincoln said, that operates of, by, and for the people. If we want to have this debate over conflicting State labels, then fine. Let's create a common standard. Let's create one common standard for the entire country, a little symbol on the ingredients. That is all it would take. It could be any symbol, and the FDA could choose it so there is nothing pejorative about it. It is not taking up space on the package. It is not taking up space on the cover. It is not pejorative. It is not demeaning. It doesn't imply there is anything wrong. It just says this is something citizens want to know, just as they want to know farm versus wild for fish; just as they want to know concentrate versus nonconcentrate for juice; just as they want to know what minerals, vitamins, and ingredients are in the food they are buying. This they want to know. So honor that. Let's not tear down that vision laid out in the first three words of our Constitution and replace ``We the People'' with ``We the Titans.'' If you want to be a Senator in a republic that starts out with a Constitution that says ``We the Titans,'' then please go be a Senator in a different nation. Go to work somewhere else but not here in the United States of America where we have a responsibility to the citizens and the citizens are clear on where they stand. So if we must vote on Wednesday--and there is no need to. We are only voting on Wednesday because within seconds of this bill being introduced tonight, the majority leader also put forward a petition that forces a vote on closing debate on Wednesday morning. No. So before anyone has had a word to say, a petition has already been filed to close debate. What kind of a democratic process is that? So the only time to speak to this is tomorrow when the whole world is paying attention to the primaries in five different States--and tonight. That is why I am speaking tonight. So I am hoping a few people are tuned in enough to activate their networks and to say: This is wrong, Mr. Majority Leader. Pull that bill from this floor. That is a terrible assault on deliberative democracy. Send it to a committee and actually have a debate on it so people can analyze it. Give people in that committee the opportunity to do amendments. Give citizens across the Nation the chance to find out this is going on. Honor the people of this Nation and their right to know. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. MERKLEY

Mr. MERKLEY. And I certainly don't object to the Senator doing that. But as we go into morning business, there is no need to put a 10-minute limit to accomplish that.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I object. Reserving the right to object, I would say to the majority leader that we are about to enter a topic where people have strong opinions, and they should be able to speak what amount they desire and not be limited to 10 minutes.