Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have some good news. Today we have before us a legislative package that reflects 2 years of work for the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. When we first embarked on this process, the goal was to find ways to spur innovation and reduce the time it takes for new therapies and treatments to get from the research bench to the bedside for patients. The bill is the 21st Century Cures Act, which includes--I am going to repeat this several times--true bipartisan victories for patients in our health care system. Throughout my time in Congress, I have been a consistent supporter of funding for the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, to fulfill our commitment to prioritizing biomedical research and innovation. NIH research returns priceless benefits, giving health care providers new tools and drugs to heal and give hope to individuals. The benefits of this research investment to Kansans back home have been direct and personal. Back in 2012, the University of Kansas Cancer Center received a National Cancer Institute designation, or an NCI designation. These centers are major players in research and development for cancer treatment and prevention. The legislation we will be voting on today or tomorrow--or at the very least next week--does commit an additional $1.8 billion for Vice President Biden's Cancer Moonshot. This will not only help the University of Kansas as they continue to push toward a comprehensive cancer center designation, but it will help all Americans who stand to benefit as we work to end the fight against cancer. In addition to research funding, this bill includes some provisions I authored along with Senator Klobuchar to improve and increase transparency in the review and approval of processes for medical devices. Specifically, the bill does this. It encourages the FDA, or the Food and Drug Administration, to accept international consensus standards to provide more predictability for innovators. Second, it makes improvements to the advisory committee selection process in an effort to provide more transparency. It provides a technical correction to establish a process by which the Food and Drug Administration may remove certain products from the class I device reserve list if they think a premarket review is no longer necessary to prove reasonable assurances of safety and effectiveness. Senators Isakson, Casey, and Roberts' priorities seek to provide more certainty for FDA review of combination products and therapies that do not fit neatly into simply a drug or device. The legislation also includes important reforms to our mental health system based largely on a bill the HELP Committee passed earlier this year. With this section of the bill, we seek to clarify and improve our mental health parity laws. We reauthorized the substance abuse and mental health block grants. We promote evidence-based practices to ensure we are utilizing our scarce resources on programs that work and not continuing to fund what doesn't work. We reauthorized the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act for suicide prevention and intervention and the National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative. There is a lot more work to be done, obviously, to address the deficiencies in our current system, but this bipartisan bill is certainly a good step in the right direction toward improving access to mental health services and eliminating the stigma of seeking treatment. Finally, the 21st Century Cures Act includes numerous priorities that my colleagues on the Finance Committee and I have been working on for several years. One provision I was proud to support in committee extends the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program for another 5 years. As our rural hospitals continue to try and make ends meet, this program helps what we call ``tweener'' hospitals survive. Hospitals that do not qualify as critical access hospitals would not survive under the current Medicare payment system. It is a critical program that benefits Kansans in Junction City, Ulysses, and Fort Scott by keeping their hospital and access care open. There is more rural relief. Senators Thune, Crapo, and I have championed a provision to protect rural access to durable medical equipment under the Competitive Bidding Program. We would have liked to have seen a more permanent solution. However, this bill delays applying competitively bid prices of rural areas and requires the Department of Health and Human Services to take into account stakeholder input as well as average travel distance, volume of items, services furnished, and the number of suppliers in these areas when determining adjustments in setting bid prices. I have the privilege of being the cochairman of the Senate Rural Health Caucus. I know how critically important these and other pieces of the package are for our beleaguered rural health care system. There is no question that we have many challenges ahead. While this package may not be a silver bullet to ensure cures for all that ails us, it sets priorities in research, cancer, cancer precision medicine, regenerative medicine, and heartbreaking diseases like Alzheimer's through the BRAIN Initiative. We all know someone affected by these dreaded diseases. It also makes significant changes in how these new therapies are evaluated, hopefully approved, and delivered to patients, providing more tools in the medicine cabinet that will improve many lives. Advances in medical research benefit us all, and this bill does just that. I wish to make a comment with regard to previous discussions of this bill on the floor of the Senate. Unfortunately, a very small minority of my colleagues want to criticize and even villainize this legislation and those who worked so hard on it, which is terribly disappointing to me. With the passage of this bill, both Republicans and Democrats can take pride in putting together and working toward a bipartisan bill that lives up to its name--the 21st Century Cures Act. I regret the tone of the debate that took place with regard to this bill and the personal comments that were made. I will remind my colleagues that there is a rule XIX that the distinguished Presiding Officer can invoke at any time and any Senator can ask that a Senator's words be taken down under rule XIX. I only say it so that we can look upon a bipartisan bill like this and say: Look at what we have done. Let's be proud of it and certainly not get into the mud with regard to any personal comments. I urge my colleagues to advance research, advance the development treatments, and support this bill. It is a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill that we should all be proud of. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield back.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to share some flashbacks for throwback Thursdays, if we want to call it that, with regard to ObamaCare. There have been a lot of speeches made about ObamaCare recently. Specifically, I want to look at the facts about ObamaCare, as we all know them now, more than 6 years after it was signed into law--6 long years--and remind the country what the President and my colleagues across the aisle promised all of us when they pushed this bill through the Congress. I say ``push'' because it passed without one single Republican vote and certainly not mine. First, the reality. All summer long, we have read the headlines about drastic premium increases being requested, insurers pulling out from different States, and patients being caught in the middle. My State of Kansas has not been immune. Last year, UnitedHealthcare announced it would leave our State. Aetna was going to start offering coverage next year and then announced a massive exit from exchange markets across the country, including Kansas. We were at risk of having just one insurer in many parts of the State, with no competition with regard to pricing. In June, the State insurance department announced a proposed rate increase for next year. The good news: A new insurer, Medica, was proposing to offer coverage in Kansas. However, there is bad news. The bad news is that premiums could be increased by nearly 50 percent next year for some individuals in our State and I know in many other States. Last year, the highest approved increase was 24.5 percent. Next year's rates are still being finalized, but they could be double that. Now let's throw it back. In 2013, President Obama said about the law that ``the result is more choice, more competition, real health care security.'' Today, however, we see less choice, less competition. And with insurers coming and going and rising premiums, I think Kansas families would agree they are not secure in their health care coverage. I don't know any State that is. These are not just headlines in the paper or on the Internet; real folks back home are hurting. A nurse in Miltonvale, KS, wrote to me about what she calls the devastating effect ObamaCare is having on her patients and her loved ones. She says: ``I am very concerned that continuing along these lines will further limit care and accelerate a decline in health care in our state, as well as our nation.'' But, again, let's throw back to what we were initially promised. Way back on the campaign trail in 2008, then-Candidate Obama promised that he would enact health care reform which would lower a typical family's premium by $2,500 a year. I don't foresee any way those savings could be realized if a Kansan's premium is going to be up to over 40 percent, on top of about 25 percent last year. Looking back to 2013, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi said the implementation of this law was ``fabulous.'' Fabulous, indeed. This was, of course, before open enrollment started and the failed launch of the healthcare.gov Web site, which crashed. More issues of concern to me have come from recent regulations that have been used to implement this law. This law has massive regulations. The law has 2,000 pages. We are now at over 10,000 pages of regulations. The administration has proposed changing how they verify individuals as being eligible to receive taxpayer assistance for their premiums under the law. Discrepancies between what a person claims their income is and what is received from trusted data sources must now be off by 25 percent. Previously, it was 10 percent in order for the administration to investigate a possible fraud. So I guess you can be fraudulent up to 24.9 percent now. The administration should not be lowering the standard by which it verifies eligibility for folks to receive our scarce taxpayer dollars. It is unacceptable for implementation of this law to further burden taxpayers by failing to protect against fraud and abuse. Another recent regulation gets at one of my biggest fears from the law's passage: the ability of the government to ration care. There were four provisions of this law that I believed would decrease individual choice and open the door to rationing, one of which was the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, CMMI. In March, this outfit passed a proposal to test, as the agency calls it, how we pay for prescription drugs for our seniors under Medicare Part B. Patient groups, doctors, and many of us in Congress are gravely concerned about how this test could affect the patient's quality of and access to care. As the Kansas Medical Society explained to me, this so-called demonstration ``will force Kansas Medicare beneficiaries with serious, sometimes life- threatening conditions to participate, disrupt their treatment processes, and impede their access to needed medications with no evidence of improved health outcomes or financial gains for the Medicare system.'' Such a so-called test is now allowable because of the rationing provisions of ObamaCare. The law is simply not working for the large majority of Americans. Insurers are pulling out, citing large losses in covering the population of people who are seeking coverage on the exchanges. So Americans are left with fewer options in selecting their health care coverage, and, most concerning, they are paying more for it--a lot more. Looking back to December of 2015 when this body sent legislation to the President's desk to repeal ObamaCare, the President's Statement of Administration Policy stated simply, ``The Affordable Care Act is Working.'' Yet, last month the President wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association that ``too many Americans still strain to pay for their physician visits and prescriptions, cover their deductibles, or pay their monthly insurance bills.'' That is a true statement. I thank the President for waking up to this nightmare. Despite his new revelation that the Affordable Care Act is, in fact, the unaffordable care act for most, the President and his party's candidate to succeed him say the answer is greater government control-- a public option. Folks, that is government health care. That is what we are talking about. The failings of ObamaCare cannot be corrected with more government intervention, more restrictions, and more regulations. We must triage the pain this law is inflicting on hard-working Americans. We must repeal and we must replace this law. I know that many colleagues will join me in continuing to work to provide freedom from its mandates and increased taxes to all and enact reforms to our health care system that will actually lower the cost of coverage and increase access to care for individuals. Simply put, this law is failing. It is our job to correct it, and we will continue fighting to do so. I was talking about this matter in the cloakroom just moments ago. Several of our Members have been very active in this whole endeavor to try to not only repeal but to replace this law, and they pause a little bit and say: You know, maybe this law was designed to fail. Maybe this law is so bad in terms of falling apart that people could not help but know that and then come in and say that the only thing we can now move to is national health care, government-run health insurance. If that is true, that is a 6-year effort with a lot of pain and suffering and in terms of political deceit, probably ranks right at the top. We have to repeal this law. We have to replace it. We have to get to work. And we have to prevent further steps toward national health insurance. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today as the Senate considers legislation on an issue that is critically important to our Nation's food supply. From our producers in the fields to our families purchasing food in the aisles of the grocery stores, without the Senate action we are considering today, this country will be hit with a wrecking ball that will disrupt the entire food chain. We need to act now to pass our amendment to S. 764. This is a bipartisan--a bipartisan--approach that provides a permanent solution to the patchwork of biotechnology labeling laws that will wreak havoc on the flow of interstate commerce of agriculture and food products in our Nation's marketplace. That is what this is exactly about--the marketplace. It is not about safety. It is not about health or nutrition. It is about marketing. Science has proven again and again that the use of agriculture biotechnology is 100-percent safe. The Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Tillis, provided on the floor just a moment ago that, in fact, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry last year heard from the three Federal agencies tasked with regulating agriculture biotechnology--the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration. Their work is based on sound science and is the gold standard for our policymaking, including this policy we are debating today--one of the most important food and agriculture decisions in recent decades. Many people say this issue is the biggest issue for agriculture in 20 years. I agree. At our hearing, the Federal Government expert witnesses highlighted the steps their agencies have already taken to ensure that agriculture biotechnology is safe--safe for other plants, safe for the environment, and safe for our food supply. It was clear that our regulatory system ensures biotechnology crops are among the most tested in the history of agriculture. At the conclusion of the hearing, virtually all of the members of the Agriculture Committee were in agreement. Not one disagreed. Thus, it is clear that what we are facing today is not a safety or a health issue, despite claims by a couple of my colleagues on the Senate Floor. It is a market issue. This is really a conversation about a few States dictating to every State the way food moves from farmers to consumers. This patchwork approach of mandates adds costs to national food prices. In fact, requiring changes in the production or on-package labeling of most of the Nation's food supply for a single State would impact citizens in each of our home States. A recent study on the impact of an on-package label estimates that the cost to consumers could total as much as $82 billion annually--$82 billion--approximately $1,050 per hard-working American family. Let me repeat that. That is $1,050 per hardworking American family. Now is not the time for Congress to make food more expensive for anybody to eat or produce--not the consumer and certainly not the farmer. Today's farmers are being asked to produce more safe and affordable food to meet the growing demands at home and around a very troubled and hungry world. At the same time, they are facing increased challenges to production, including limited land and water resources, uncertain weather patterns, and pest and disease issues. Agricultural biotechnology has become a valuable tool in ensuring the success of the American farmer in meeting the challenge of increasing yield in a more efficient, safe, and responsible manner. In fact, thanks to modern agriculture technology, we have seen a 48-percent increase in corn yields. That is good for the farmer, that is good for the consumer, and that is good for a troubled and hungry world. There has been a 36-percent increase in soybean yields in the last 20 years. That is the value of agricultural biotechnology. Now, I have also heard--and I do understand the concern--from some of my colleagues about consumers and available information about our food. Some consumers want to know more about ingredients. This is a good thing. Consumers should take an interest in their food, where it comes from, and the farmers and ranchers that produce their food. This legislation puts forward policies that will help consumers find information--almost guaranteed. It does so without jeopardizing the technology upon which our farmers rely. More importantly, the legislation before us provides an immediate and comprehensive solution to the unworkable State-by-State patchwork of labeling laws. State consumer protection laws and anything beyond the wrecking ball that we see related to biotechnology labeling mandates are codified as exempt from preemption. We ensure that the solution to the State patchwork-- one thing we can all agree upon--is effective. The amendment focuses on human food that may or may not be bioengineered. We do not set up any new offices at the Department of Agriculture, and we minimize any impact on other agencies. Instead, we direct the Secretary to establish a uniform national disclosure standard through rulemaking. It sets national uniformity that allows for the free flow of interstate commerce, a power granted to Congress in the U.S. Constitution. Let me point this out. The commerce clause in article I, section 8, clause No. 3, provides that ``the Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign Nations and among the several States and with the Indian Tribes.'' But note ``among the several states''--more than several States today. This labeling uniformity is based on science and allows the value chain--from farmer to processor to shipper to retailer to consumer--to continue as the free market intended. To accomplish national uniformity, we crafted a mandatory disclosure requirement. We are talking about mandatory disclosure, not just labeling. The Senate bipartisan agreement is mandatory disclosure with several options--text on package, a symbol, or an electronic link to a Web site that Senator Tillis so aptly demonstrated. The legislation is clear that the link cannot include any text on the package that could be used to denigrate biotechnology. It will simply say: ``Scan here for more food information.'' We also allow for Web sites or telephone numbers to satisfy the requirement for small food manufacturers, and we completely exempt very small food manufacturers and restaurants from having to comply. The disclosure requirement applies to food subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act labeling requirements as well as some meat and poultry products. We do not include alcohol, as those items are subject to labeling requirements under a different authority at the U.S. Treasury. In this respect, alcohol is similar to other food that is labeled under a different authority than the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The scope of this agreement includes human food, not animal feed. The language prohibits the Secretary from considering any food product derived from an animal to be bioengineered based only upon the animal eating bioengineered feed. It is important, as with any Federal legislation on this topic, for Congress to consider scientific fact and unintended consequences. We include a safety statement. The agreement ensures that the regulations will treat bioengineered food the same as its nonbioengineered counterpart. We agree that these products have been found safe through the Federal regulatory review process. I want to emphasize this, and I want my colleagues to understand this. This legislation has the support of more than 1,000 organizations--large and small--representing the entire food chain, and that number continues to grow every day. Never before in the history of the Senate Agriculture Committee--and, I would venture of any committee--have we seen such a coalition of constituents all united behind such an effort. Their message is clear: It is time for us to act. It is time for us to provide certainty in the marketplace. It is time for us to pass this amendment. I appreciate the bipartisan support of those on the committee who joined me by voting to approve our committee bill, those who supported a solution in March, and those who voted to consider this agreement. We have again made significant changes to address the concerns of the ranking member and others. Now, we all must carry this across the finish line. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan approach and protect the safest, most abundant, and affordable food supply in the world. Now, I want to say something else. I want to talk about the men and women whom the Agriculture Committee represents and whom everyone on the Agriculture Committee should champion and protect. I am going to describe that person to my colleagues on the floor, with reverence to Paul Harvey. And on the 8th day, God looked down on his planned paradise and said, ``I need a caretaker.'' So God made a farmer. God said, ``I need somebody willing to get up before dawn, milk cows, work all day in the fields, milk cows again, eat supper and then go to town and stay past midnight at a meeting of the school board.'' So God made a farmer. ``I need somebody with arms strong enough to rustle a calf and yet gentle enough to deliver his own grandchild. Somebody to call hogs, tame cantankerous machinery, come home hungry, have to wait on lunch until his wife's done feeding visiting ladies and then tell the ladies to be sure and come back real soon--and mean it.'' So God made a farmer. God said, ``I need somebody willing to sit up all night with a newborn colt. And watch it die. Then dry his eyes and say, `Maybe next year.' I need somebody who can shape an ax handle from a persimmon sprout, shoe a horse with a hunk of car tire, who can make harness out of haywire, feed sacks and shoe scraps. And who, planting time and harvest season, will finish his forty-hour week by Tuesday noon, then, pain'n from `tractor back,' put in another seventy-two hours.'' So God made a farmer. God had to have somebody willing to ride the ruts at double speed to get the hay in ahead of the rain clouds and yet stop in mid-field and race to help when he sees the first smoke from a neighbor's place. So God made a farmer. God said, ``I need somebody strong enough to clear trees and heave bails, yet gentle enough to tame lambs and wean pigs and tend the pink-combed pullets, who will stop his mower for an hour to splint the broken leg of a meadow lark. It had to be somebody who'd plow deep and straight and not cut corners. Somebody to seed, weed, feed, breed and rake and disc and plow and plant and tie the fleece and strain the milk and replenish the self-feeder and finish a hard week's work with a five-mile drive to church.'' ``Somebody who'd bale a family together with the soft strong bonds of sharing, who would laugh and then sigh, and then reply, with smiling eyes, when his son says he wants to spend his life `doing what dad does.' '' So God made a farmer. It is our responsibility to protect that farmer, and to protect what he does to feed this Nation and a troubled world with the best quality food at the lowest price in the history of the world. So let us protect that farmer. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield prior to his statement on another subject?

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator. This has been a long process--well over a year. We had the committee hearing within the Agriculture Committee months ago with the EPA, FDA, and many witnesses declaring that agricultural biotechnology is safe. Note I changed the name because GMO has become a pejorative. It is hard to fix that, but that is what it is--agricultural biotechnology. We went to work and passed a bill, 14 to 6. Then we tried to change the bill so that the minority could possibly vote for it. Unfortunately, we were not able to get the required number of votes for cloture. Back then, it would have been very appropriate, it seems to me, for anybody interested to bring their amendment to the floor. Senator Merkley is here. We offered--at least through staff--he tells me he didn't get the message, but I was for all amendments at that particular time. We didn't even get cloture.

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not have the time. The Senator from Delaware has yielded to me. I will finish my statement in just a minute, if I can. Here we are with the July 1 deadline having been met, and here we are with the Vermont labeling law becoming, in effect, the national law. I know there are some for that. There was one Senator from the other side of the aisle, and that was the Senator from Delaware, who went to work to get a reasonable bill. This is a well-crafted compromise. If it is a well-crafted compromise between the ranking member and the chairman with appropriate people like the Senator himself working hard to get support for that, we should go ahead and get this done. I appreciate the willingness of the Senator to work in a bipartisan fashion, and I thank him again.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator has made a unanimous consent request for six amendments. Is that correct?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I go over each of these amendments, each one would undo the carefully crafted compromise that has been put together by the distinguished ranking member, Senator Stabenow, and me, so I must object.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I understand I have 10 minutes reserved, and I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute, if I do not finish. I am to be followed by my distinguished ranking member, Senator Stabenow.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about a topic and a bipartisan bill that will affect what consumers pay for their food, the grave threats of worldwide malnutrition and hunger, and the future of every farmer, every grower, and the future of every rancher in America. That topic is agriculture biotechnology. We have all heard about our growing global population, currently at 7 billion and estimated to reach over 9.6 billion in the next few decades. Tonight, 1 in 9 people--that is roughly 800 million people-- worldwide will go to bed hungry. Around the world, impoverished regions are facing increased challenges in feeding their people. Show me a nation that cannot feed itself, and I will show you a nation in chaos. Goodness knows, we have had enough of that. We have seen too many examples in recent years where shortfalls in grain and other food items or increases in prices at the consumer level have helped to trigger outbreaks of civil unrest and protests in places such as the Middle East and Africa. In light of these global security threats, today's farmers are being asked to produce more safe and affordable food to meet the demands at home and around the globe. At the same time, farmers are facing increased challenges to their production, including limited land and water resources, uncertain weather, to be sure, and pest and disease issues. However, over the past 20 years, agriculture biotechnology has become an invaluable tool in ensuring the success of the American farmer in meeting the challenge of increasing yield in a more efficient, safe, and responsible manner. For years now, the United States has proven that American agriculture plays a pivotal role in addressing food shortfalls around the world. We must continue to consider new and innovative ways to get ahead of the growing population and production challenges. In addressing these issues, we must continue to be guided by the best available science, research, and innovation. If my colleagues have heard any of my previous remarks on this topic, they have heard me say time and again that biotechnology products are safe. My colleagues don't have to take my word for it. The Agriculture Committee held a hearing late last year where all three agencies in charge of reviewing biotechnology testified before our members. Over and over again, the EPA, the FDA, and the USDA told us that these products are safe--that they are safe for the environment, safe for other plants, and certainly safe for our food supply. Since that hearing, the U.S. Government reinforced their decisions on the safety of these products. Last November, the FDA took several steps, based on sound science, regarding food that is produced from biotech plants, including issuing final guidance for manufacturers who wish to voluntarily label their products as containing ingredients from biotech or exclusively nonbiotech plants. More importantly, the Food and Drug Administration denied a petition that would have required the mandatory on-package labeling of biotech foods. The FDA maintained that evidence was not provided for the agency to put such a requirement in place because there is no health safety or nutritional difference between biotech crops and their nonbiotech varieties. A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences ``found no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between current commercially available genetically engineered crops and conventionally bred crops.'' Just last week, 110 Nobel laureates sent an open letter to the leaders of Greenpeace, the United Nations, and all governments around the world in support of agriculture biotechnology, and particularly in support of golden rice. Golden rice has the potential--has had the potential and has the potential--to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by a vitamin A deficiency, particularly among the poorest people in Africa and Southeast Asia. These world-renowned scientists noted that ``scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer, than those derived from any other method of production.'' Furthermore, the laureates said: There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption. Their environmental impacts have been shown repeatedly to be less damaging to the environment, and a boon to global biodiversity. There has been a lot of discussion about agriculture biotechnology lately, and that is a good thing. We should be talking about our food. We should be talking about our farmers and producers, and we should be talking to consumers. It is important to have an honest discussion and an open exchange of dialogue. After all, that is what we do in the Senate--discuss difficult issues, craft solutions, and finally vote in the best interests of our constituents. The difficult issue for us to address is what to do about the patchwork of biotechnology labeling laws that soon will wreak havoc on the flow of interstate commerce of agriculture and food products in every supermarket and every grocery store up and down every Main Street. That is what this discussion should be about. It is not about safety or health or nutrition; it is all about marketing. If we don't act today, what we will face is a handful of States that have chosen to enact labeling requirements on information that has nothing to do with health, safety, or nutrition. Unfortunately, the impact of those State decisions will be felt across the country and around the globe. Those decisions impact the farmers who would be pressured to grow less efficient crops so manufacturers could avoid these demonizing labels. Those labeling laws will impact distributors who have to spend more money to sort different labels for different States. Those labeling laws will ultimately impact consumers, who will suffer from much higher priced food. When on- package labels force manufacturers to reformulate food products, our farmers will have limited biotechnology options available. This will result in less food available to the many mouths in our troubled and hungry world. It is not manufacturers who pay the ultimate price; it is the consumer--at home and around the globe--who will bear this burden, unless we act today. I am proud of the critical role the Department of Agriculture has played and will continue to play in combating global hunger. Farmers and ranchers in Kansas, Michigan, and all across this country have been and are committed to continue to doing their part. And those of us who represent them in the U.S. Senate should do our part to stand up in defense of sound science and innovation. We should stand up to ensure that our farmers and ranchers have access to agriculture biotechnology and other tools to address these global challenges. The proposal put forth by my distinguished ranking member Senator Stabenow and me provides that defense of our food system and our farmers and ranchers, while at the same time providing a reasonable solution to consumer demand for more information. That is what the bill does. Our amendment strikes a careful balance. It certainly is not perfect from my perspective. It is not the best possible bill, but it is the best bill possible under these difficult circumstances we find ourselves in today. That is why, I say to my colleagues, it is supported by a broad coalition of well over 1,000 food and agriculture industries, and that sets a record in the Senate Agriculture Committee. They include the American Farm Bureau Federation, Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, just to name a few. I urge my colleagues to not merely support cloture on a bill this afternoon but to support your broad range of constituents who benefit from its passage. Passing this bill benefits farmers and ranchers by providing a mechanism for disclosure that educates rather than denigrates their technology. Passing this bill benefits manufacturers by providing a single national standard by which to be held accountable, rather than an unworkable system of many more State standards. Finally, passing this bill benefits consumers by greatly increasing the amount of food information at their fingertips but does so in a way that provides cost-effective options to avoid devastating increases in the price of food. Passing this bill is the responsible thing to do. It is time for us to act. I urge my colleagues to join us in doing just that. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I wish to recognize an inspirational artist, entrepreneur, and philanthropist from my State, Gracie Schram, who has been awarded the 2016 Nation Federation of Independent Business Owners Young Entrepreneur Award. Miss Schram, of Leawood, KS, is the founder and owner of Gracie Schram Music, an entertainment company that provides live performance, speaking engagements, original music, recordings, and merchandise. At the young age of 10, she was introduced to the reality of underprivileged children in Haiti and Africa. Inspired to do good, she was determined to improve the living conditions of so many she hadn't even met. She went on to write and produce several albums, the proceeds of which led to the building of two fish ponds in Africa and an orphanage in Haiti. This is an extraordinary accomplishment. When asked why she has chosen to help those in need, her response was, ``I was just a kid who wasn't willing to wait for somebody else to change the world.'' I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Miss Schram on her outstanding achievements. We wish her nothing but the best for her future entrepreneurial and educational endeavors.

Mr. ROBERTS

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the resolution of disapproval of the Department of Agriculture's catfish inspection program on several grounds. This has become a rather heated issue. I think there are some issues we need to clear up, especially speaking from the privilege of being the chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture. The amendment seeks to make changes to food safety inspection by eliminating the Department of Agriculture's inspection program of domestic and foreign-raised catfish. This program just started in March. Some of the comments about the expense of this program have been made as if they were on an annual basis. Most of the costs that were cited in the General Accounting Office report did not mention the fact that these were startup costs. The program was created due to concerns related to food safety. The USDA has a very strong record of requiring meat that is imported to the United States to be processed in foreign facilities that are ``equivalent'' to U.S. meat processing facilities. The Department of Agriculture visits these facilities and conducts audits to ensure that their practices are in line with what we require in the United States. This is done to ensure that food coming into the United States is safe. That product is also inspected once it arrives at U.S. ports of entry. Simply put, what we have here is a program that requires the same equivalency determination for foreign raised and processed catfish as we require for beef, chicken, lamb, pork, and all the other commodities or all the other animal products that you could imagine. Just last week I was notified by the Department of Agriculture that their inspections of Vietnamese catfish found illegal drug residues in two shipments destined for the United States. I am sure that others who have spoken to this issue, especially Senator Boozman and Senator Cochran, have repeated this. Had this program not been in place, this violation would not have been caught and the product would have been allowed to enter into commerce. I am very surprised. I know this is an easy issue to bring up with regard to a GAO report for 10 years that said this duplicating what the Food and Drug Administration does. It is, but it is no longer because the Department of Agriculture is taking it over because they have a much more robust program. The Food and Drug Administration really only inspects 2 percent of the catfish. We are talking about a much higher percentage by the Department of Agriculture. I hope those in the Senate who are trying to remove this important safeguard just 2 months into the program being enforced and on the tails of it paying off and preventing adulterated catfish from entering commerce--I remind my colleagues that this program was authorized in the 2008 and 2014 farm bills. That was delayed for a while. Startup costs started last year. Again, those costs that are mentioned in the General Accounting Office are not pertinent to what is happening today. I want to say one other thing. Farm bills are developed through 5 years of thoughtful discussions and also negotiations. When a farm bill is passed, any producer of any product, including any animal product, expects--almost as if it is a contract--to be able to depend on it. If you have a burgeoning industry of domestic catfish, you want to make doggone sure that it is safe and that there are no imports that represent a health hazard, and that is exactly what happened in this particular instance. You do not want to open up farm bills willy-nilly on a specific issue that may make a headline or may make a good TV spot--to quote the General Accountability Office--which has not taken into consideration that this is just a startup kind of situation in terms of the money. It is interesting to me that this was scored at zero. The Congressional Budget Office has scored it at zero. I think I understand all of this talk about wasting money. I don't know anybody in the Congress--House or Senate--who is for wasting money. One person's wasteful spending of money is another person's viable investment. So we have to look pretty close. I ask that my colleagues vote no on the resolution and to maintain these important food safety protections and the carefully crafted 2014 farm bill. This is not the time to open up the farm bill. We will certainly begin discussions on that in the next year, and we will take up these matters in the following year and go over it with a fine-tooth comb. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I thank my colleague and my good friend from Arizona for enabling me to make a few remarks to address the nomination of Mr. Eric Fanning to serve as Secretary of the Army. I have pledged to the people of Kansas that I would do everything in my power to stop President Obama from moving terrorist detainees to Fort Leavenworth, KS. The Senator from Arizona has certainly described the situation very well: It is the intellectual center of the Army. I believe today that I can tell Kansans that the threat from this administration will go unfulfilled. Last week, in a private meeting with Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work, I received the assurances I needed to hear to release my vote on Mr. Fanning. Make no mistake. I think President Obama's threat to act by Executive order still remains. However, Secretary Work has assured me that, as the individual charged with executing a movement of detainees to the mainland, he would be unable to fulfill such an order before the close of this administration. Practically speaking, the clock has run out for the President. As I have stated on this floor and to my good friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, my issue has never been--let me make this very clear--with Mr. Fanning's character, his courage, or his capability. He will be a tremendous leader as Army Secretary and will do great by our soldiers at Fort Leavenworth, Fort Riley, and--let me emphasize--every soldier serving our Nation today. I just talked to Mr. Fanning this afternoon and let him know I was releasing this hold and wished him good luck on his speech to the graduates of West Point. I look forward to voting for Mr. Fanning, who has always had my support for this position. I am happy to support his nomination today with these new assurances from the administration and from the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee to work with me to strengthen provisions on funding for the transfer of detainees to the mainland in this year's National Defense Authorization Act. I have worked closely with Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed. I look forward to completing work on an authorizing bill shortly. Additionally, the Senate Appropriations Committee is committed to prohibiting funding for construction or modification to any facility in the United States for the purpose of housing detainees in this year's MILCON funding bill currently on the floor. With the clock running down on the last months of the Obama administration, it is increasingly improbable that this administration could bring high-value terrorists and their associated risks to an American community like Fort Leavenworth, KS. The bottom line is this: We have run out the clock, and Congress looks to prohibit this administration from moving detainees to the mainland at every turn. As the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General have testified before Congress, moving detainees to the mainland is prohibited by law and will remain so through the end of this President's term. I again thank my friend and my colleague, Senator McCain, for working with me to work this out. My congratulations to Secretary Eric Fanning--Army Secretary Eric Fanning. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I want to make certain that my colleagues understand my position on this matter. My hold on Eric Fanning's nomination is not in relation to his capabilities, expertise, or character, and it is certainly not intended to bring undue stress to our U.S. Army. Rather, my hold on the nominee is to protect the security of the United States and especially the people of Kansas. I will be more than happy to vote for Mr. Fanning once the White House addresses my concerns regarding the President's efforts to move Guantanamo Bay terrorist detainees to the mainland, with Fort Leavenworth, KS, the intellectual center of the Army, very high on the list. I have been clear, honest, and flexible with the White House. I am simply asking that they communicate to me what all those who have reviewed Fort Leavenworth already know; that Fort Leavenworth is not a suitable replacement for the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay. The White House has not reciprocated. I have prepared lengthier remarks on my position in this matter. At this time, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Arizona, our distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee and my friend, has made a very impassioned plea for me to remove my hold on Eric Fanning to be Secretary of the U.S. Army. I want to be very clear that as a veteran and marine, I support the nominee for this post. Kansas is the proud home to two Army posts, Fort Leavenworth, the intellectual center of the Army where the commandant staff school is located, and Fort Riley, home of the Big Red One--two proud posts with very rich histories. I want the Army to have a highly qualified Secretary just as much as the distinguished Senator from Arizona, but it is due to my deep respect and concern for the men and women in uniform at Fort Leavenworth, and those who live and work in the region, that I am compelled to issue my hold on the President's nominee in the first place. As I have publicly stated from the beginning, and personally to Mr. Fanning, former Army Secretary John McHugh, and Defense Secretary Ash Carter, my quarrel is not with the nominee but with the President. President Obama continues to insist that he will close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility before he leaves office, transferring the remaining detainees to the U.S. mainland, with Fort Leavenworth under serious consideration. Quite frankly, this is a legacy item for the President. After much study and review, I can name countless reasons why this plan is wrong and it is also illegal. The President's own Cabinet has acknowledged this, and the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General have publicly stated that current law prohibits the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the mainland. Yet the President is undeterred. He continues to insist it will be done, even if he has to resort to Executive power in defiance of the law and the will of the Congress. As a result, I have been left with very little choice other than to do what I can as an individual Senator to block the transfer of detainees to Fort Leavenworth. I understand and share the concerns of the distinguished Senator, but if there is any anger, concerns, or frustrations, it should be directed at a White House that intends to ignore laws written and introduced by the Senator from Arizona himself. We should be speaking today, not about my attempts to protect the people of my State and Fort Leavenworth, we should be speaking about a White House that ignores the National Defense Authorization Act and every appropriations bill passed in this Chamber since 2009. We should be angry at a White House that wants to bring this terrorist threat to our shores without so much as an intelligence assessment as to the risk and benefits of such an action to our citizens at home or to our men and women in uniform. An intelligence assessment regarding these concerns does not exist. The administration is responsible for refusing to come forward with a real plan to relocate prisoners, instead of a weak and veiled attempt to honor a campaign promise, which is the only way to characterize the actions to date. Just days ago, I received the most classified report from the Department of Defense on moving the detainees from Gitmo. This report-- far from clearing up any reports--made it even more apparent to me that it is virtually impossible to safely relocate terrorists at Fort Leavenworth. The assessment is there. All I am asking is for the White House to assure me that Fort Leavenworth is not a viable alternative. Cities and towns across America are holding their collective breath while we await the White House's judgment as to where to house these detainees. For those of us in the crosshairs, we are left with very few options to fight a President who is willing to break the law. With this hold, I have used one of the tools--perhaps the only tool other than a filibuster--afforded to me as a U.S. Senator, and I will continue to do everything in my power to fulfill the obligations of the security of the United States. It is what Kansans expect and have demanded of me. If the White House calls and assures me that terrorists held at Guantanamo will not come to the Fort Leavenworth, I will gradually release this hold immediately. As a matter of fact, we just had a conversation with the White House this morning in the hopes that this could be worked out, but the White House simply would not give me that assurance. Make no mistake, I remain adamantly opposed to placing detainees anywhere on the mainland. The distinguished Senator from Arizona knows that, and I think he shares those views. However, if the plans and studies from the administration rule out Fort Leavenworth as an option, all they have to do is tell me. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. I object.

Mr. ROBERTS. Will my friend from Arizona yield?

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, if this is a bad precedent and all that the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee has said it is with regard to my actions, I will remind him that there has been a precedent before this time. The year was 2009, and this issue came up. Obviously, it was a campaign promise by the President. There was a lot of concern, a lot of frustration, a lot of anger. I asked myself at that particular time what on Earth I could do to stop this effort to move detainees to Fort Leavenworth. Again, I would stress that it is the intellectual center of the Army. The commander staff school is there--think Pershing, think Eisenhower, think MacArthur, think Petraeus. Bad fit. Sixteen thousand people at Leavenworth have signed a petition saying no to the detainees. Back then, in 2009, John McHugh--a wonderful Congressman, a great friend to me, and a great Secretary of the Army--was being nominated. I took the very same action, I would tell the distinguished Senator from Arizona, and put a hold on John. I called him up. I said: John, I have some bad news and some good news. He said: Well, give me the bad news. I said: Somebody here in the Senate has put a hold on you. He said: Who on Earth would do that? I said: It is me. He was a little stunned--I think a lot--and would probably make the same statement and speech the Senator from Arizona has given. I said: Not to worry. All that has to happen is for the administration to give me assurance--it could be vocal; I don't expect him to write it down--that the detainees will not be moved to Fort Leavenworth. John went to work to try to carry that message to the administration. I am not saying that Eric Fanning should do that, but John McHugh did. And it wasn't very long after that that the legal counsel from the White House--and I won't get into names here--called me and assured me that would be the case. I immediately lifted the hold. So there is a precedent in 2009, and it worked. Again, I really regret--my hold on Eric Fanning's nomination is not in relation to his capabilities, his expertise, his character, and certainly not intended to bring undue stress to the U.S. Army. I understand that. But when we are faced with a situation like this, and the situation could be further explained by a call that I just received prior to the distinguished Senator coming to the floor--the White House knows this--we had a very frank conversation. The conversation pretty well ended up: I can't give you that assurance, but we won't surprise you; i.e., if we have an Executive order and we are moving detainees into Fort Leavenworth, we will certainly tell you. So I can't release this hold, as I did in 2009. I don't think the statute of limitations is here with regard to the previous assurance I got from the White House. If there is, maybe it is because that is-- when the legal counsel left, all of a sudden we were back to where we are. So the ball is in the court of the White House. All they have to do is give me another call and indicate that things will be fine. I am not telling them what language to use or anything else. I might add that there are two other Senators who are very concerned about this--Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and the distinguished Senator from Colorado, Cory Gardner. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield again for one last comment?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, every Senator listening to this--every person listening to this--should understand, with the summation the Senator has just given, what an outstanding chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee he has been and what a stalwart he has been for our men and women in uniform. I cannot think of a chairman--and there have been a lot of very great chairmen in the Senate Armed Services Committee, but none so well qualified as the Senator from Arizona. His remarks are right on point with regard to his point of view. His remarks sing, if you will, in behalf of our national defense. He is a great friend. He is a personal friend. I respect him more than he knows, and I appreciate him. I think he mentioned Eric Fanning to be Secretary of the Navy. That might be an alternative. But at any rate, I want to thank him for his remarks. But if this has no bearing on anything, why did the White House call me just before we came down here trying to work it out? And saying that in 2009--OK, they did let me know that Fort Leavenworth was not being considered. As I say again, there is no statute of limitations, I don't think, except just ``Oh well, by the way, we are going to change our mind'' and a couple of little campaign assurances by the President saying ``Well, we can always use an Executive order''--not to mention his Press Secretary. So if there is nothing to bear here--this doesn't have any relationship to the issue at hand--why did the White House call and say ``Well, we will make a decision down the road, but we won't surprise you''? I shouldn't even be talking about this with regard to the communications this morning. So I just disagree with my good friend. I thank him for his leadership, and I thank him for his position. Were I in his position, I probably would be saying the same thing.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I wish to start off my remarks with regard to the bill that is before us. There is an article from The Hill newspaper, and it is quoting Julie Borlaug, who is the granddaughter of Norman Borlaug, a University of Minnesota graduate who helped to spark the green revolution in agriculture technology that is credited with saving more than 1 billion people from dying of hunger. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from The Hill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS. Quoting from the article, Ms. Borlaug said: I am glad to see my grandfather's work praised. . . . Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts . . . has put forward a bipartisan proposal that would establish national standards for food made with genetically-engineered ingredients. The Biotech Labeling Solutions Act would prevent a costly state-by-state patchwork of labeling mandates. It would also help ensure that providing greater information could go hand-in-hand with providing greater education at a national level about the safety and importance of GMO crops. . . . Sixteen years ago, my grandfather wrote that the world would soon have the agriculture technologies available to feed the 8.3 billion people anticipated in the next quarter of a century. The more pertinent question is whether farmers and ranchers will be permitted to use these technologies. I rise again to discuss my amendment numbered 3450 on biotechnology labeling solutions. There has been a lot of discussion about this amendment and this topic in general. That is a good thing. We should be talking about our food, we should be talking about our farmers and producers, and we should be talking about our consumers as well. It is important--extremely important--to have an honest discussion and an open exchange with dialogue. After all, that is what we do in the Senate or at least that is what we are supposed to do. We are here to discuss difficult issues, craft compromised solutions, and finally vote in the best interest of our constituents. That is what we are doing here today: exercising our responsibility to cast a vote for what is in the best interest of those who sent us here. Let's start with discussing difficult issues. The basic issue at hand is agriculture biotechnology labeling. If you have heard any of my previous remarks, you have heard me say time and time and time again that biotechnology products are safe, but you don't have to take my word for it. The Agriculture Committee held a hearing late last year where all three agencies in charge of reviewing biotechnology testified before our members. Over and over again the EPA, the FDA, and the USDA told us that these products are safe--safe for the environment, safe for other plants, and safe for our food supply. This is the gold standard on what is safe with regard to agriculture biotechnology. Not only are these products safe, but they also provide benefits to the entire value chain from producer to consumer. Through biotechnology, our farmers are able to grow more on less land using less water, less fuel, and less fertilizer, but the difficult issue we are debating today is about more than recognizing the fact that biotechnology is safe. No, today our decision is about whether to prevent a wrecking ball from hitting our entire food supply chain. The difficult issue for us to address is what to do about the patchwork of biotechnology labeling laws that will soon wreak havoc on the flow of interstate commerce, agriculture, and food products in every supermarket and every grocery store up and down Main Street of every community in America. That is what this is about. It is not about safety, it is not about health, and it is not about nutrition. It is all about marketing. What we face today is a handful of States that have chosen to enact labeling requirements on information that has nothing to do with health, safety, or nutrition. Unfortunately, the impact of these decisions will be felt all across the country. Those decisions impact the farmers in the fields who would be pressured to grow less efficient crops so manufacturers could avoid these demonizing labels. Those labeling laws will impact distributors who have to spend more money to sort different labels for different States. Those labeling laws will ultimately impact consumers who will suffer from higher priced food. It will cost $1,050 per year for an average family of four. That is right. If we do nothing, it is not manufacturers that will pay the ultimate price, it is the consumer. A study released this year found that changes in the production or labeling of most of the Nation's food supply for a single State would impact citizens in each of our home States. The total annual increased cost of doing nothing today, such as not voting for cloture, could be as much as $82 billion every year. That is a pretty costly cloture vote. That is 1,050 bucks tacked onto each family's grocery bill, and that is a direct hit to their pocketbooks. Let me repeat that. If we fail to act today--if we do not have cloture and get to this compromise bill--the cost to consumers would total as much as $82 billion a year or 1,050 bucks for hard-working American families. I don't think that is what my colleagues want. I don't think they want to be responsible for that: a cloture vote with an $82 billion price tag? Come on. This is the difficult issue we must address and the question is, How do we fix it? That is why we have crafted a compromise solution and put it on the floor for debate and action. The amendment before us today stops this wrecking ball before any more damage can be done. Two weeks ago, the Agriculture Committee passed a bill with a bipartisan vote of 14 to 6. I am very proud of that legislation. It stopped the State-by-State patchwork and provided a national voluntary standard for biotechnology food products. For the first time, the Federal Government would set a science-based standard allowing consumers to demand the marketplace provide more information. Consumers are growing more and more interested in their food, and that is a good thing. We, as consumers, should learn more about where our food comes from and what it takes to keep our food supply the safest, the most abundant, and the most affordable in the world. However, the role of government in this space is to ensure that information regarding safety, health, and nutritional value are expressed directly to consumers, but the information in question today has nothing to do with safety or health or nutrition, so the responsibility and opportunity to inform the consumers falls on the marketplace. If consumers want more information, they demand it by voting with their pocketbooks in the aisles of the grocery store. As our bipartisan bill has come to the floor, I have heard concerns that this voluntary standard is not enough for our consumers. Yet again we worked with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The legislation before us goes further than the committee-passed bill. This legislation addresses concerns with a voluntary-only approach by providing an incentive for the marketplace to provide consumers with more information. To my friends on this side of the aisle, this legislation allows the market to work. To my friends on that side of the aisle, if the marketplace does not live up to their commitments, if information is not made available to consumers, then this legislation holds the markets accountable by instituting a mandatory standard. It is not just any mandatory standard, it is a standard that provides the same options and mechanisms for compliance as outlined and stated publicly by our Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack. Simply put, the legislation before us provides us an immediate and comprehensive solution to the unworkable State-by-State patchwork labeling laws. As chairman of the sometimes powerful Senate Agriculture Committee, I believe this is a true compromise. Like any bill, it is not perfect, and I know that, but to those who criticize this legislation in one breath and say they want a compromise in the next breath, I ask: Where is your plan? Where is your solution? We have heard the distinguished Senator from Oregon many times on this floor-- not a stranger to this floor--criticizing this compromise. I appreciate, and I am sure we all appreciate, his passion. I disagree with his views, but I appreciate that he did put his plan into a bill and put it out for public debate. What I don't understand is why he doesn't want to vote on it. Why would you put a bill out there and decide not to vote on it? Why would you not vote for cloture so you can get to a vote on your bill? We could have voted on his legislation today. Yet when he was presented with the option to take a vote, he declined. I have read the press release where he described the compromise as maintaining the status quo. If the truth be known, this compromise achieves just the opposite. In fact, voting no today is the only way that maintains the status quo. Voting no today does nothing to stop the wrecking ball. Voting no today ensures that the instability in the marketplace continues. Voting no today puts farmers and all of agriculture at risk. Voting no today negatively impacts the daily lives of everybody in the food chain from the farmer who will be forced to plant fence row to fence row of a crop that is less efficient to the grain elevator that will have to adjust storage options to separate the types of grain, to the manufacturer that will need different labels for different States, to the distributor that will need expanded storage for sorting, and to the retailer who may be unable to afford offering low-cost, private-label products, and, finally, to the consumer who will be forced to pay for all this additional cost to the tune of $82 billion. Now we come to our final task as elected officials of this body taking a vote. But before we do, we should all know that never before-- never before in my experience as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee and all the years I have had the privilege to serve on both committees--we have never seen a bill in the Agricultural Committee with so much support, never. Over 800 organizations all across the food and agriculture perspective have a stake in this bill. It is at the national and State and local levels. They all support the bill. The bill has the support of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the American Farm Bureau, and many, many more. Virtually every farm group is in town. I just talked to the American Soybean Association this past week. One farmer said: Hey, if I cannot have agriculture biological crops with regard to increasing the yield that I plant, what am I going to do? Am I going to plant fence row to fence row? Am I going to lose in this situation when farming income is declining and farm credit is getting tighter? The fundamental role of the Agriculture Committee is to protect American farmers and ranchers who provide a safe, abundant, and affordable food supply to a very troubled and hungry world. So I will be voting yes to do just that, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Voting no today means telling your constituents next week that you are raising their grocery bill by over $1,000. Good luck with that. It is a pretty simple vote. You are either for agriculture or you are not. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I suspect a quorum call has been initiated. If so, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today is National Agriculture Day, and I wish to thank the farmers and ranchers of America. The Senate is considering legislation on an issue that is critically important to our Nation's food supply. It affects everyone from our producers in the fields to our consumers in the aisles of grocery stores. Without Senate action, this country will be hit with a wrecking ball--an apt description--that will disrupt the entire food chain. We need to act now to pass my amendment to S. 764. This is a compromised approach that provides a permanent solution to the patchwork of biotechnology labeling laws that will soon be wreaking havoc on the flow of interstate commerce, agriculture, and food products in our Nation's marketplace, and that is exactly what this is about. Let me repeat that. This is about the marketplace. It is not about safety. It is not about health or nutrition. It is about marketing. Science has proven again and again and again that the use of agriculture biotechnology is 100 percent safe. In fact, last year the Agriculture Committee heard from three Federal agencies tasked with regulating agriculture biotechnology: the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Environmental Protection Agency--yes, the EPA--and the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA. Their work is based on sound science and is the gold standard for policymaking, including this policy we are debating today--one of the most important food and agriculture decisions in recent decades. At our hearing, the Federal Government expert witnesses highlighted the steps their agencies have already taken to ensure that agriculture biotechnology is safe--safe to other plants, safe to the environment, and safe to our food supply. It was clear our regulatory system ensures biotechnology crops are among the most tested in the history of agriculture in any country. At the conclusion of the hearing, virtually all Senate Agriculture Committee members were in agreement. What happened? When did sound science go out the window? Since that hearing, the U.S. Government reinforced their decisions on the safety of these products. In November, the FDA took several steps based on sound science regarding food produced from biotech plants, including issuing final guidance for manufacturers that wish to voluntarily label their products as containing ingredients from biotech or exclusively nonbiotech plants. More important, the Food and Drug Administration denied a petition that would have required the mandatory labeling of biotech foods. The FDA stated that the petitioner failed to provide the evidence needed for the agency to put such a requirement in place because there is no health safety or nutritional difference between biotech crops and their nonbiotech varieties, regardless of some of the rhetoric we have heard on the floor of the Senate. Thus, it is clear that what we are facing today is not a safety or health issue, despite claims by my colleagues on the Senate floor; it is a market issue. This is about a conversation about a few States dictating to every other State the way food moves from farmers to consumers in the value chain. We have a responsibility to ensure that the national market can work for everyone, including farmers, manufacturers, retailers, and, yes, consumers. This patchwork approach of mandates adds costs to national food prices. In fact, requiring changes in the production or labeling of most of the Nation's food supply for a single State would impact citizens in our home States. A recent study estimates that the cost to consumers could total as much as--get this--$82 billion annually, which comes to approximately $1,050 per hard-working American family. This Vermont law, which is supposed to go into effect in July, will cost each hard-working family $1,050. Let me repeat that. If we fail to act, the cost to consumers could total as much as $82 billion annually and will cost each hard-working American family just over $1,000. Now is not the time for Congress to make food more expensive for anybody--not the consumer or the farmer. Today's farmers are being asked to produce more safe and affordable food to meet the growing demands at home and around a troubled and very hungry world. At the same time, they are facing increased challenges to production, including limited land and water resources, uncertain weather patterns, and pest and disease issues. Agriculture biotechnology has become a valuable tool in ensuring the success of the American farmer and meeting the challenge of increasing their yields in a more efficient, safe, and responsible manner. Any threat to the technology hurts the entire value chain--from the farmer to the consumer and all those who are involved. I also hear--and I do understand the concern from some of my colleagues about consumers and available information about our food. Some consumers want to know more about ingredients. This is a good thing. Consumers should take an interest in their food, where it comes from, and the farmers and ranchers who also produce their food. I can assure you the most effective tool consumers have to influence our food system or to know more about food is by voting with their pocketbooks in the grocery stores and supermarkets. This legislation puts forward policies that will help all consumers not only find information but also demand consistent information from food manufacturers. However, it is important, as with any Federal legislation on this topic, for Congress to consider scientific fact and unintended consequences. The committee-passed bill created a voluntary national standard for biotechnology labeling claims of food. I have heard concerns that a voluntary-only standard would not provide consumers with enough information, even though there is no health, safety, or nutritional concern with this biotechnology. So we worked out a compromise to address these concerns by providing an incentive for the marketplace to provide more information. This legislation will allow the markets to work. However, if they do not live up to their commitments and information is not made available to consumers, then this legislation holds the market accountable. Under this proposal, a mandatory labeling program would go into effect only if a voluntary program does not provide significant information after several years. The marketplace would then have adequate time to adjust and utilize a variety of options--a menu of options--to disclose information about ingredients, along with a wealth of other information about the food on the shelves. Simply put, the legislation before us provides an immediate comprehensive solution to the unworkable State-by-State patchwork of labeling laws. Preemption doesn't extend to State consumer protection laws or anything beyond the wrecking ball that we see related to biotechnology labeling mandates, and we do ensure that the solution to the State patchwork, the one thing we all agree upon, is effective. It sets national uniformity that allows for the free flow of interstate commerce, a power granted to Congress in the U.S. Constitution. This labeling uniformity is based on science and allows the value chain from farmer to processor, to shipper, to retailer, to consumer to continue as the free market intended. This ensures uniformity in claims made by manufacturers and will enhance clarity for our consumers. Increasingly, many Americans have taken an interest in where their food comes from and how it is made. Let's keep in mind this is a good thing. We want consumers informed about food and farming practices, but at the same time we must also not demonize food with unnecessary labels. This debate is about more than catchy slogans and made-up names for bills. It is about the role of the Federal Government to ensure the free flow of commerce, to make decisions based upon sound science, all the while providing opportunity for the market to meet the demands of consumers. This is not the first time this body has addressed this issue. In 2012 and 2013, Members of the Senate soundly rejected the idea of mandatory labeling for biotechnology. That is right. Both times more than 70 Members voted to reject mandatory labeling. This body then stood up for sound science and common sense, and I trust my colleagues will continue to stand up and defend sound science again. Time is of the essence for not only agriculture in the food value chain but also consumers who work together, face the wrecking ball of this patchwork of State-by-State mandates. This legislation has the support of more than 650 organizations. We never had 650 organizations contact the Agriculture Committee about any other bill, any other piece of legislation--more than 650. My staff now tells me that number is over 700, large and small, representing the entire food chain, and that number continues to grow every day. That is quite a coalition. They are here in Washington trying to say: Look, this is not going to work with regard to State-by-State regulation. As I have said, never before in the Agriculture Committee have we seen such a coalition of constituents all united behind such effort. Their message is clear: It is time for us to act. It is time for us to provide certainty in the marketplace. I appreciate the bipartisan support of those on the committee who joined me to vote out our committee bill. The vote was 14 to 6. We made significant changes to address the concerns of others. Now we must carry this across the finish line. I urge my colleagues to support this compromising approach and protect the safest, most abundant, and affordable food supply in the world. I yield the floor. Upon close inspection, I suggest the absence of a quorum.