Debbie Stabenow

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this has been a roller coaster time for those of us who care deeply about what happened over 2\1/2\ years ago in the city of Flint with a system that was not treated properly and exposed 100,000 people in Flint to lead poisoning. We had a great vote last week, and I am very grateful to Senator Inhofe and Senator Boxer, who came together, working with Senator Peters and me, to put together a larger water bill that included an effort to help Flint families as well as other communities that have exposure to lead in their water. That effort had a final vote of 95 to 3. This was a very positive moment. Today, just a little while ago, it was just the opposite. We have an opportunity to complete the job we started last week and include this fully offset package in this budget bill in front of us, the continuing resolution. Yet the Republican leader did not do that. What adds insult to injury is, there is help for Louisiana but not for the families of Flint, and I might add, ours is fully offset. There is no offset in spending, there are no other programs cut to pay for the help for Louisiana, but I offered to phase out a program I sponsored in 2007-- that doesn't happen a lot around here--in order to pay for this emergency in Flint and help other communities with lead in their water across the country. So we have something fully paid for and for which there should be absolutely no objection. I would love to know the objection to helping a group of people-- 100,000 people in Flint and other families across the country in Jackson, MS, New York, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Texas, and across the country--with something fully paid for. What is the objection to putting that into this continuing resolution if the other side of the aisle is willing to put in something that doesn't have an offset in it to help the people in Louisiana? I support helping the people in Louisiana. I believe we are in this together as a country. As Americans, I think, no matter the emergency, we should be willing to help each other. We have had a variety of emergencies over the years, such as the fertilizer company in West, TX, where there was an explosion a few years ago. It was not a flood, not a hurricane, not a drought but a fertilizer explosion, and people were exposed. The Federal Government stepped in to help, and that wasn't fully paid for either. Here we have a situation with 100,000 people--9,000 children under the age of 6--who are seriously exposed to lead and that exposure will affect their development, physically and mentally, for the rest of their lives. They have now waited--they have waited--over 1 year since they knew what was happening. We have finally gotten to a point where we have strong bipartisan support in the Senate, and this is easy to put this in this bill--easy. But we are in a situation where we are saying to the people of Flint: Well, wait just 3 more months. Wait until the end of the year. I guess the other question is, Why don't people in Louisiana wait until the end of the year? I think we should help both of them now. In Flint, we literally have people getting up in the morning and saying: OK. I have to take the kids to the school. Should I pick up the bottle of water before I take them to school or after? Gosh. Now, I don't have a car, but can I get somebody to help me go over before I go to work--pick up the bottle of water now or later? We are going to have to spend some time because it is not easy to use bottled water and do a shower for yourself and the kids, let alone for cooking and all of the other things we take for granted every day. People in Flint, for almost 2 years, have been having to deal with this every single day. If this were happening to us, we would view it as an emergency. A decade ago--I don't know, 10 or 12 years ago--when Washington, DC, had lead in the water, somehow everybody came together to get that fixed. There was a concern about the water in the Cannon House Office Building, and that got fixed. I have a funny feeling if something happened in Wisconsin, the Speaker would decide that was serious enough to fix that, but we have a group of people in Flint, MI, who trusted their elected officials and who have been waiting--actually, incredibly patiently--for action so they can turn on the faucet and have clean water. They had such hopes last week. This was a great moment of people coming together, 95 to 3, on a bill that would not only help families in Flint but across the country. That is how we are supposed to govern. We did that concerning the lead in the water in Flint. We went the extra mile to make sure that was fully offset by phasing out another program to pay for it. Literally, this package could go anywhere. It could go by itself by voice vote today. It could go any number of places, but it needs to happen now. To see the continuing resolution come to the floor with help for Louisiana and not for the families of Flint is outrageous. It is just outrageous. I will do everything in my power to make sure this does not happen. We are not--we are not, I am not--going to support an effort that says to the people of Flint: You don't count. Your child doesn't count. We care about people in Louisiana. Oh, they count, but people in Flint, MI, don't count. We don't see them. We don't care. Well, we do see them. We do care about them. We spent 8 months putting together a bipartisan coalition in the Senate, and I am grateful for that. As I said before, Senator Inhofe has been terrific to work with. We were so pleased last week that we were on track to get this done and then to find out that when we now have this opportunity and we had this huge vote--a bipartisan, fully offset, paid-for package to move it forward--suddenly Flint doesn't count. Flint families don't count. Flint children don't count. But for Louisiana, which wasn't in the WRDA bill--or so far we haven't voted on it separately--we need to help Louisiana. By the way, let me say again, I am happy to support Louisiana, but the help for Louisiana and the help for Flint need to be done the same. Let me finally say----

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if there is a moment left, I wish to underscore that we are not asking to pit communities against each other. We are not asking colleagues to say no to Louisiana. We are asking colleagues to say yes to Flint and Louisiana and understand that your ZIP Code doesn't matter. We have the obligation to step up when there is an emergency and help American families. That is all we are asking for the people of Flint.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes, and if the Chair would, let me know when I have spoken for 8 minutes, please.

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

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, it has been 189 days since President Obama nominated a distinguished jurist, Merrick Garland, to the U.S. Supreme Court. I know there are a lot of issues on people's minds every day because they are working hard and taking the kids to school and putting food on the table and all of the hard work that goes on every day for families, and sometimes talking about the Supreme Court may seem a little abstract to people. I want to speak a little bit about why Americans should care, beyond the fact that we all care about the fact that we have three branches of government under our Constitution, and we need them all fully functioning. That was the point of our Founding Fathers, to make sure we had three functioning branches, and right now we have one that is not fully functioning. In fact, when they sit, starting October 3, there is going to be a vacant chair because we will not have fulfilled the responsibility of the U.S. Senate of confirming someone for that ninth seat. Why does that matter to people? Well, over our lifetimes, great debates have gone on about quality education and equal access to schools regardless of where a child lives. It is very important not only for children and for families but for an economy that can function and a country that can function. Very important decisions have been made that affect every neighborhood in America, every family in America. We have seen issues related to equality in the workplace and in housing and access to credit, if you want to buy a house or you want to start a business. We have seen a whole range of issues that directly affect all of us. Frankly, the third branch of government, as we know, is a check on us, a check on Congress, and on the Presidency to make sure we have the watchdog looking at what we are doing from the lens of the U.S. Constitution and our Bill of Rights, and making sure we are all living up to that document that is the cornerstone of our country. So the Supreme Court matters. What happens matters. Years ago, in 1937--I don't think any of us were here; if we were, we weren't very old at that time--but there was a case called West Coast Hotel v. Parrish. It happened in 1937. Elsie Parrish worked as a maid in Washington State and she sued to be paid the $14.50 a week she was owed under the Washington State law. Her case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, and it was settled in a 5-to-4 decision. Obviously, it was a very close vote, and without that majority, we wouldn't have a minimum wage today. That was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5- to-4 decision. Today we all understand that everybody who works hard every day ought to be able to be above the poverty line. I certainly believe that, and we certainly have much to do to make sure our minimum wage keeps up, but if we didn't have that case, people would have a much lower standard of living. We wouldn't necessarily have a minimum wage that sets a floor for everyone's wages in America, as well as addresses equal pay as it relates to wages across the country. There are so many ways in which the Court impacts our lives. We have had multiple health care decisions, certainly, as it relates to the Affordable Care Act and whether we will have competitive health exchanges so people can purchase insurance at lower rates, and whether we are all in this together so that if we all have insurance, then we are able to have important policies fulfilled, such as no preexisting conditions, so that if you have cancer or your child has diabetes or you have had a heart attack or some other chronic disease, you can purchase health insurance. This is all tied up in implications from Court decisions that relate to health care, and multiple other decisions that relate to health care, and whether 20 million people who now have health care in our country would be having health care if it were not for a Supreme Court decision or decisions as it relates to health care policy. So workers and families across America need nine Supreme Court Justices. We need to make sure that when October 3 comes along and the picture is taken of the U.S. Supreme Court, there is not a vacant seat here. We have heard Justice Kagan, for example, who said: A tie does nobody any good. Presumably, we are here for a reason. They are there to resolve cases that need deciding and answer hotly contested issues that need resolving. They can't do that with a tie vote. The fact is, unfortunately, the Republican majority is refusing to even give Judge Garland a hearing despite the fact that he has been praised over the years by Members on both sides of the aisle for his integrity and his commitment to the judiciary. It makes one wonder why it is that this seat is being left open. There can be really only one conclusion, and that is that the seat is being left open for the Republican nominee, even though Republican colleagues are stepping away at every turn from the comments made by the nominee and distancing themselves. They are basically saying: We think the Republican nominee should make that appointment. Even though he has no respect for the judiciary, they believe he should be appointing the new Supreme Court Justice. That can be the only conclusion as to why we would see the majority waiting right now. I realize it makes no sense. We will see the third branch of government effectively go for a year, maybe more, without being able to fully function because of people not being willing to do their job because they are waiting to have Mr. Trump fill that seat. I find that embarrassing and extremely concerning for all of us. It is time for Senate Republicans to do their job. It is very simple. We all have a job to do. None of us would be able to just tell our employer that a major part of our job is something that we just don't feel like doing for a year, so we are not going to do it. We could say that, but when I talk to people about that, they say: Yeah, chances are I would be fired. I certainly wouldn't be paid if I didn't do my job. Yet here, despite our constitutional responsibility to fill that spot, the Senate Republican majority is not doing its job. Doing our job doesn't mean we have to vote yes. We can vote yes; we can vote no. You can vote yes or no in a hearing, yes or no on the floor. But we have a constitutional responsibility to consider a nominee from the President, to meet with him, to consider his record, to ask questions, to have a hearing, to have a vote, and then people can vote yes or no. You can vote yes or no, but we do have an obligation to vote. From my perspective, there is no way I can explain to people back home in Michigan why that seat has been left open for any valid reason, unfortunately, other than politics, and that is just not good enough when it comes to fulfilling our job and making sure the third branch of government can fully do its job. Mr. President, I am calling on the Republicans to hold a hearing. We still have time to hold a hearing, and we can hold a vote before we leave. This is a choice by the majority--a conscious choice--but there is time to hold a hearing and there is time to have a vote so that when October 1 comes, there will be the full nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices sitting, ready to do their job. Do your job. That is what we need to have happen. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, it has been 187 days since President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. That is a long time. Since March 16, we have been waiting for a hearing. It is really extraordinary when you think how long we have seen the third branch of government unable to fully function because of inaction in the U.S. Senate. Republicans have a constitutional duty to uphold, and they have not done their job. We all have that constitutional duty. We are standing at the ready. We are willing to remain here in session until we can get this done. We need a hearing now. We need to get Merrick Garland on the Court before the Court begins its new session on October 1. Unfortunately, we are likely to leave--maybe at the end of this week or next week--without a hearing. The Republican leadership's inability to consider Garland's nomination puts the Court at frequent risk of deadlock, which is not in the interest of families or of those whose interests are coming before the U.S. Supreme Court. It is a shame because Merrick Garland is a uniquely qualified jurist. In fact, Republican colleagues have noted his qualifications in the past, but the reason Republicans haven't acted is simple, unfortunately, and that is a political calculation. When we look at the Court on October 1, when they are seated, it will look like this, with a vacant chair. The question is, Whom are they holding the chair for? I envision behind this chair a shadow of the Republican nominee--someone who is standing behind there. And it is clear that Republicans in the Senate are holding this seat open for Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, in hopes that he will be the next President. I am not sure about you, but when it comes to filling this empty seat, ``Celebrity Apprentice: Supreme Court Edition'' is not a show I want to watch, and it is certainly not a show that the American people will benefit from. Many of my Republican colleagues also recognize that the nominee for President on their side poses a risk to our judicial system. When the Republican nominee attacked a Federal judge's impartiality on the basis of his parents' ethnicity, the majority leader said he ``couldn't disagree more with a statement like that.'' Why then would he leave this seat open for that person to fill? How can you justify allowing someone to nominate a Justice to the highest Court in the land when it is clear that nominee has no respect for the judiciary as an institution? Another one of my Republican colleagues described the Republican nominee's comments--one of many of his comments, but described one set of comments as ``the literal definition of racism.'' Yet that person is supporting Donald Trump, and they are holding a seat open for this person who has said things that are literally the definition of racism. This colleague actually at some point came out on the record as not supporting the nominee, and he has been joined by other Republican Senators. Yet they potentially keep a seat open for this person to fill on the highest Court in the land. Another Member of this body has referred to the Republican nominee as ``a pathological liar'' who ``doesn't know the difference between truth and lies.'' Senate Republican colleagues can't justify holding up Judge Garland's confirmation, but all of my Republican colleagues are doing that, hoping that Mr. Trump is the person who gets to nominate this Justice in January. It makes no sense. They all remain unified in their opposition to Judge Garland, who is one of the most qualified and well-respected judges of this generation. They are unified in not moving forward, even though many of them have said very positive things about him in the past, and I would expect to see that in the future. I have to wonder what exactly those Senators-- especially the ones who are opposing their party's nominee--are waiting for because it is obvious to me that just about every Member of this body believes that Judge Garland would do an excellent job on the Court. I call on all Republican colleagues to do their job to hold a hearing to bring this nomination to the floor as quickly as possible, to not hold open a spot on the highest Court in the land for someone who many of them have been running to distance themselves from. This is a very serious issue. We talk a lot about the Constitution around here. We have three branches of government, and one right now cannot fully function in the public's interests on behalf of businesses, families, young people, older people, and children because they don't have the full membership of the Court. It is our job in the U.S. Senate to make sure they have all of the members present when the new Court sits, starting on October 1. I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Do your job. Now is the time to do your job. The American people expect us to do our jobs. Do your job and don't hold a seat open for the Republican nominee, whom so many of you have expressed such displeasure for. It is time to do your job as the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation that is currently on the floor, the Water Resources Development Act. I start by thanking a great legislative team of opposites who come together--and when they do they get things done--that is, Senator Inhofe, the chair of the committee, and the ranking member, Senator Boxer. I thank both of them for tireless effort, including their staffs for bringing forward something that is very important to my home State but important to communities all across the country. I also want to thank our two leaders for coming together and finding a way to have a path forward that allows us to come to the bill without a vote on a motion to proceed, and that involves all of our colleagues wanting to work together and that is evident on this bill and I very much appreciate everybody's efforts. This comes after the Environment and Public Works Committee approved the Water Resources Development Act by 19 to 1 in the committee. Clearly, there is very strong bipartisan support, and it comes because the water infrastructure needs of the country are so great for every community, every State. I know the distinguished Presiding Officer would be able to tell the same story in North Dakota. I particularly want to focus on one part--and then I will speak more broadly about the bill--but the part that deals with lead exposure and lead in water, which is very important to me, as colleagues know, and very important to a community called Flint, MI, where 100,000 people, through no fault of their own, were exposed to excessive levels of lead. There are efforts going on now to try to fix that, and we will focus on the long-term health and nutrition needs of the children and families, but the water is still not fixed. People have said to me: Gosh, that was really bad what happened before in Flint. I say: No, no, it is not what happened in Flint, it is still happening. There are still bottles of water being delivered to homes, and people have been waiting. So we are grateful to be at this point, and there certainly is a sense of urgency coming from families in Flint and all around Michigan as well. More than one-half million preschool students in the United States are exposed to elevated lead levels. So this is an issue not only in Flint but in schools and other parts of Michigan, where the drinking fountains in the school--you know, when you are walking down the hall and see the drinking fountain in the school is shut down because of high lead exposure, that has happened in schools across the country. We have a particular concern because there are 9,000 children under the age of 6, not counting all the children in school, who have elevated lead levels. It is quite frightening because some of the homes in Flint actually have registered levels higher than a toxic waste dump. It is pretty scary and incredibly important that we support their efforts to get the pipes replaced as quickly as possible. The cost of lead exposure goes far beyond the $50 billion a year Americans have to pay in health care and in bottled water and all of the other health issues. Having unsafe water costs us our well-being, the health of the communities, economic development. It costs us a sense of dignity. As Americans, we think one of the basic rights that we don't think about--we just take it for granted that you are going to turn on the faucet and clean water is going to come out and you can drink it. That sense of basic confidence in infrastructure has been shaken in Flint but also in other communities across the country. That is something we are addressing in this bill that is so very important. I am very pleased we have a bill in front of us that will comprehensively not only address a community that we have been fighting for and care deeply about but other communities around Michigan and around the country. We need the funding in this bill--the authorization in this bill because of a number of reasons. Let me again--speaking about lead, there are 5,300 American cities that have been found to be in violation of Federal lead rules. So there are 5,300 cities right now that we know don't meet the standards for safety. In USA TODAY they reported that excessive lead has been detected in nearly 2,000 public water systems across all 50 States. This is an important bill, and it addresses something that not only I have been focused on and my colleague Senator Peters has been focused on but I know other colleagues are focusing on in communities in their States. Frankly, there is no safe level of lead exposure and even a small amount can harm people over their lifetime. One study from Rhode Island found a correlation between even the lowest levels of lead exposure and declines in reading scores. There are certainly many other studies. When we look at what is happening in this bill, the first thing I am very pleased to say is that we have a provision that helps our communities that have literally been shut down, not only families with bottled water, but can you imagine being a downtown restaurant and we have economic development going on downtown and all of a sudden people don't want to come because they are worried the restaurant is using contaminated water. In fact, it is totally safe to come to downtown Flint, and they are making great efforts on economic development and revitalization. I was pleased to host the SBA Administrator a number of months ago, talking with small business entrepreneurs who are excited about being in Flint. When we look at the broad ripple effect when a water system isn't safe, it is most importantly about families and children, but it also affects small businesses and it affects the entire economy. So in this bill, we are very pleased we have a provision fully paid for by phasing out another program that will help address this. We also address lead contamination in communities across the country. There is a very important loan program that was put in place by the chairman and ranking member in the last WRDA bill but not activated, not funded, that we fund that will activate loans--$800 million, possibly more, in loans available for communities all across the country. The structure was set up in the last WRDA bill and now in this one we are actually funding it. So communities can activate very important loans to upgrade their water infrastructure. We also know that when we are looking at issues around lead contamination, we see across the country drinking water issues in 22 percent of the homes in Jackson, MS, were found to exceed the Federal action lead levels. I remember the Mayor of Jackson saying to pregnant moms and children: Don't drink the water. It is not just water. There are 37 million housing units in the United States that contain lead-based paint. Even though we have come a long way, we have addressed lead-based paint, but we still have problems there in older homes that are still affecting children. Soil is another issue, and certainly those of us who work with our farmers understand that as a critical resource in growing our food in East Chicago, IN, some show lead levels up to 227 times above the Federal lead limits and 135 times above the arsenic limit. It is pretty tough to be growing things when you have that kind of contamination in the soil. The top 6 inches of soil had up to 30 times more lead than the level considered safe for children. Atlantic City, Philadelphia, Allentown, Pennsylvania, where over 500,000 children have enough lead in their blood to merit a visit to the doctor. In this bill, we provide resources as well to address issues related to public health and lead in children. We know that for the 286 million Americans who get their tapwater from community water systems, this bill is an incredibly important investment in many different ways. It is necessary for public health and safety, it is necessary for economic development, and communities across America will benefit from this. I also thank the committee for once again focusing on something else we in Michigan care about--the Great Lakes. We are surrounded. We have the peninsula surrounded by water and great beauty. Another wonderful summer we just had, where boating, fishing, and tourism is a very important part of our economy as well as a way of life. In this bill, for the first time, we established the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, formally in law, and it will authorize $300 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative over the next 5 years. This is important for all of us in the Great Lakes State. It is also important because 27 percent of the world's freshwater comes from the Great Lakes. So it is a very important economic resource for all of us. This bill also authorizes new programs to help with drought by promoting innovative water technology and research, for desalinization and water reuse and recycling. It authorizes very important Army Corps projects. There are 25 critical Army Corps projects in 17 different States that are authorized in this legislation. These are authorizations for infrastructure projects that protect and address concerns in communities in South Carolina, Florida, New Jersey, and Louisiana, where we know about the hurricane and storm damage, and flood control projects in Texas, Missouri, Kansas, and California. There are environmental restoration projects in Oregon and in Washington State. There are additional dam improvement programs, new programs that allow FEMA to help rehabilitate high-hazard potential dams. America's 84,000 dams are rapidly aging, and 14,000 of them are considered high risk, high hazard. We have about 88 of those dams in Michigan that are considered high hazard. So this is a bill that touches every single State. I know Members across the aisle have worked on this together. Clearly, it is something that is very important to Michigan, very important to families in Michigan. The piece that allows us to support the 100,000 people in Michigan is incredibly important for us, but we also understand that in the process of legislating, we have been able to support efforts and needs around the country and come together to do something that is important for communities in all of our States. I think that is what legislating is all about, as the Presiding Officer knows. You and I have worked together on many different projects that try to address concerns across the country. Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for doing an outstanding job, for supporting our efforts but also supporting efforts of other Members. Hopefully, as we work our way through this process, we can come together on commonsense amendments that relate to this bill so we can have a very big vote on final passage and send it to the House, and hopefully our colleagues in the House will recognize how important this is to their districts and their States as well, and we will be able to get this to the President as soon as possible. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, might I take just 1 minute as well?

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the leader as well and thank colleagues, Senator Inhofe and Senator Boxer, for working in good faith, as they usually do, in coming up with a bill that addresses multiple issues that are very important to Members--certainly us in Michigan but others as well. I thank the leader for bringing it forward.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for engaging on this issue and seeking clarification on this point. S. 764 amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. S. 764 does not amend the Organic Foods Production Act or its rules or regulations. More specifically, section 293(f) is only intended to require that USDA consider aligning the rules and regulations of the new GMO disclosure program established under this bill with the rules and regulations of the existing National Organic Program, not the inverse. Again, I will clarify that S.764 does not provide any authority to amend the Organic Foods Production Act or its rules and regulations. In addition, I would draw to the attention of my colleague another section of this bill, section 292(b), which states: "(b) APPLICATION OF DEFINITION.-The definition of the term `bioengineering' under section 291 shall not affect any other definition, program, rule, or regulation of the Federal Government.'' I believe this provision clarifies that nothing in the new bioengineered food disclosure standard established in this legislation would require USDA to take any action to change the existing Organic Foods Production Act rules and regulations.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I wish to pay special tribute to the Purple Rose Theatre in Chelsea, MI, as the theatre celebrates its 25th season. The Purple Rose is not just an extraordinary regional theatre; its world-class productions have inspired artists, performers, and audiences across our State and Nation. The Purple Rose Theatre was founded in 1991 by actor and Michigan native, Jeff Daniels. Starting out in an old used car and bus garage, the theatre now features an intimate feel and authentic 1930s theatre decor. Michigan is home to a vibrant performing arts community, and the Purple Rose is a unique gem and special part of Michigan's rich and diverse cultural fabric. The theatre is a home for all types of artists, whether new and aspiring performers or experienced professionals. It provides new performers a place to grow and learn as they master their craft. We are all fortunate to be able to enjoy the quality, professional productions of the Purple Rose at affordable prices. The theatre has also been a great community partner. It offers readings and lectures through a partnership with the Chelsea District Library and has helped make Chelsea a thriving destination for the arts. I am proud to join the theatre's leadership, sponsors, board members, artists, and patrons on July 30, 2016, for the ``Cue 25: Lights Up!'' celebration and benefit to reflect on the past 25 years of memories and accomplishments and look forward to many more years of success. Congratulations to Jeff Daniels, the theatre's staff, and countless others responsible for the Purple Rose's tremendous success and growth these past 25 years--and best wishes for many more years of continued success.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. No, the bill does not prohibit the labeling of products developed using gene editing techniques, including RNAi and CRISPR. Additionally, the bill gives the USDA broad authority to periodically amend its labeling regulations to ensure that there are no new scientific biotechnology methods that may escape any overly prescriptive statutory definition of biotechnology.

Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Senator from Vermont for joining me in this colloquy for the purpose of bringing greater clarity to the definition included in this bill and the scope of GMO products that could be labeled. The intent of this legislation is to create a national mandatory disclosure standard for GMO foods. This bill gives USDA broad authority to determine, through rulemaking and with important input from the public and scientific community and after review of both State and international laws, what foods will be subject to this bill's mandatory disclosure standard, including highly refined products derived from GMO crops and products developed using gene editing techniques. The USDA general counsel, in a response letter dated July 1, stated that the Department has broad authority under this bill to require labels on GMO foods and products, including all commercially available GMO corn, soybeans, sugar beets, and canola crops used in food today. To answer your specific question, no, this bill does not prohibit the labeling of highly refined products derived from GMO crops including soybean oil made from GMO soybeans, high fructose corn syrup made from GMO corn, and sugar made from GMO sugar beets.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President. I couldn't agree more with my friend from Connecticut. I think probably 99 percent of the time we are voting the same way. There are good people on both sides of this discussion. There is a lot of emotion, and I think this issue around information and GMO labeling is really a proxy fight in many ways for those who support biotechnology, those who don't, and those who want to debate pesticides and other important issues that don't relate to labeling but have come into this situation. I think what we need to focus on is the fact that, A, people have a right to know information, how do we make sure it is done effectively, and at the same time we certainly don't want costs to be going up as was indicated. I know if we have 50 different labeling laws in 50 different States, that means the cost of putting those labels on and manufacturing and to grocers and so on, it is going to go up and not down, which is why there was great concern in the House when the bill was passed there a year ago. So the question for us is, How do we make sure costs don't go up? How do we ensure we have a right to know? And how do we make sure we believe in the science and respect the science? The FDA has said very clearly, in rejecting petitions to label under human health and safety laws, petition after petition, they have said the science does not show risk to human health. So looking at the National Academy of Sciences and the FDA and others, both world medical groups as well as those in this country, it is clear this is not a health and safety issue, but it is an information issue, and I believe it needs to be addressed, which is why the FDA, which handles the information and marketing, is the place where this belongs because the FDA does not believe it is in their jurisdiction related to science around food safety. So we know if we go back a moment--let me just say, before talking about labeling, I believe in supporting all sorts of agriculture. When I chaired the Agriculture Committee and we started working on the 5- year farm bill a number of years ago--it is hard to believe we are halfway through it right now--but I said it was very important that we support all parts of agriculture and not pit one group against the other, which is one of my concerns right now in this whole debate, pitting one side against the other, because we didn't do that in the farm bill. We created great increases in organic research, organic checkoff and marketing as well as traditional production agriculture. We did some very exciting creative things for local food hubs and urban agriculture that had not been done before. We said we were going to support all of agriculture. I believe, from a consumer standpoint, if we give choices, then consumers will decide. We know also that the fastest growing sector of the food sector is organic, which is non-GMO, by the way, and one of the things we do is strengthen that label and make it clear for the public to know they are purchasing organic and a non-GMO product. We came out of the farm bill with all parts of agriculture working together and we won a good farm bill. I think probably one of, if not the most, progressive farm bills we have had, supporting all parts of agriculture because we weren't pitting one group against the other, which, unfortunately, that is what this debate has become right now. When the House almost exactly a year ago passed a bill to preempt States--I know Vermont passed a State law. When the House voted to indicate there shouldn't be 50 different States with 50 different labeling laws and passed a preemption, they included only voluntary labeling, and consumers called that the DARK Act because it wasn't a required mandatory labeling of information and transparency. So the House bill, with the voluntary process, came here and I opposed it. I opposed it at every turn and indicated we had to have a mandatory system of information and of labeling for consumers that should be done in a way that does not stigmatize biotechnology, and it should be done in a way that does not set up more costs for consumers by 50 different States with different labeling laws adding costs for grocery manufacturers and grocers and so on, which is what would happen if we had 50 different laws. I went through this at one time back years ago when we were debating fuel economy standards when California passed its own fuel economy standard for automobiles. As other States looked at that, they were trying to push the Federal Government--rightly so--and the industry said: We can't have 50 different standards for fuel economy. So we said: OK. You are right, but that means you have to have a national standard on fuel economy, and that is where we ended up. So the people of Vermont, first of all, should feel very good that what they have done has created this situation to get us to a national labeling program, but here's what happens if we do nothing right now. We have a couple of choices. One is that Vermont has a GMO label. We have two other States that are waiting to see if States around them pass labeling laws that at some point may come into this, but that is basically who is getting information. We talked about everyone should have information. Right there. Those are the folks who have labeling laws. There were attempts on the west coast to pass labeling laws, and those were not successful so this is what we have. Now what we are proposing is that everybody will have information, people in my home State of Michigan, people across the country, everybody will get information and there will have to be a mandatory label. We give three choices on food that contain GMOs, not voluntary but a mandatory labeling system. So what do we do and how is it different than what happened in the House? Well, first of all, as I have indicated, a national mandatory labeling requirement, and I will talk more about that in a moment. Secondly, in Vermont and at the State level, meat, eggs, cheese, and dairy are exempt--totally exempt. So someone called it the Vermont meat loophole. So we said: You know what. That is not acceptable. So we added 25,000 more food products under this law that we would be voting on tonight. On this bill, 25,000 more food products will be labeled for people to know whether they are getting GMO ingredients. Next, the organic label. I have to say the organic trade organization was extremely effective in the efforts in passing the farm bill. They came to me with four different items they were interested in including. It was tough to get all four of those. I didn't think we actually could get them in negotiations. After our tough negotiations, I appreciate that we actually were able to achieve all four requests of the Organic Trade Association. Even though they would prefer to have one kind of label, like Vermont, they understand this was a very big step forward for the organic community. It was a step forward to get mandatory requirement and accountability. And I very much respect and appreciate the fact that when they were able to achieve all four items they felt were critical for organic farmers, they indicated they were very supportive of that and what we are doing here. Then we made sure that State and Federal consumer laws were protected, so that the label is preempted, having a label, but enforcing penalties if there is fraud or misinformation or something else related to the label--those enforcement mechanisms are maintained. So that is where the enforcement comes from. The only way we are like the House is that we prevent a patchwork of 50 different labeling laws. But everything else we have done builds on and strengthens the public's right to know as it relates to GMO ingredients. One of the big debates: OK, there are three different options. Vermont has words on the package, and we have some companies now that are doing that. They are going to indicate--regardless of what we do, they want the definition settled and they want a national policy, but based on consumer demand, they are going to proceed to have words on the package. I believe we will see more and more of that happening in the marketplace, companies responding to consumer demand. The other option we give is a label, an on-pack symbol. We don't specifically say ``GMO'' in a circle, but something like that. The third option we give is an electronic label. Some people say QR code, which actually came from the auto industry and stands for quick response code--when they were tracking labels and checking parts and other parts of the system, which actually has worked very well. But the fact is that some kind of electronic label--and technology is changing every day. Apps are changing every day. So there will probably be other options that are talked about other than a QR code. But the reality is, just as a number of groups right now that care about food and the environment have their own apps that give consumers information, this is the other option. You would be able to take your phone--by the way, according to Nielsen, 82 percent of the public has a smartphone--82 percent, not 10 percent--and we are expecting that to be more like 90 percent very shortly. You are able to scan, and immediately it will come up on the front--immediately, not hidden somewhere, not two or three clicks to get there, but you will immediately get information, yes or no, on whether there are GMOs. In fact, when you see whatever the code is, you are probably going to have a pretty good hint by that as well. So why do that? Well, some in the food industry would say there is a desire to make sure that when people are given information about genetically engineered or genetically modified foods, that they actually get information such as ``The National Academy of Sciences says this is safe for human consumption.'' That is the reason. I think there is another reason for this, and the reason it has been suggested in other forms is so that people really do get more information about their food. The reality is that the No. 1 question people ask is about food allergies. It is very difficult to find that out right now. Going forward, I think we can create an effective, user- friendly electronic label that will give people ``yes'' or ``no'' on not just GMOs but on food allergies. The next question was about antibiotics in meat. There are multiple questions people have that need to be answered, not just one. There are multiple things people are interested in. Despite the emotions around this debate, I think probably in the future we are going to see effective uses of our technology to give us more information in a user-friendly way. The other thing we do is say that the USDA has to review accessibility of broadband, accessibility of the technology before this starts, that they have to do that right away. They are required to and are given the authority to be able to put additional scanners in stores, so that if somebody doesn't have a phone, they can take the can, put it up to the scanner, and it will give them information about food allergies or GMOs or whatever. The first thing that comes up has to be GMOs. The USDA is required to look at accessibility because there are legitimate issues around accessibility that need to be addressed, and that is one of the things they are given the authority to address, and we need to make sure that continues to be addressed. But the final thing I will say about this is that companies, consumers, stores, grocery stores will drive this. Once we say this is it--we have companies right now saying: Great. Three options. We are doing this one because that is what our customers want. We have stores, great stores like Whole Foods, that say: You know what, you can have three options, but we are only going to allow an on- pack symbol or words in our store. That is going to drive the marketplace. The marketplace is going to be driven by those who are involved--by consumers, by the companies, by others who make sure they are giving people the information the way they want it. Let me say just a couple of other things. I mentioned 25,000 additional food products in the stores. Anything that is a GMO product, package, frozen, that includes some meat in it--we are going to be adding to the information consumers will have access to. I will give an example. Right now, fettuccine Alfredo is labeled in Vermont, but if you put chicken in it, it is not labeled. To go on, if you have a vegetable soup, it is labeled, but if it is beef vegetable soup, it is not. If there is even beef broth in it, it is not. I don't know how that makes sense, and yet that is the law under Vermont. I think people should be asking for more than what is going on in Vermont. Cheese pizza is labeled in Vermont, but if you put pepperoni on it, it is not, even though it still has GMO ingredients. So 25,000 additional products will be labeled because people have a right to know. Let me finally indicate again that we have strengthened the ``USDA Organic'' label. This is no small thing. This is very important. The public needs to know, has the right to know, that USDA Organic also means non-GMO and that that is a choice you have right now, to be able to make sure you are getting the products that have the kinds of ingredients you want. Again, I appreciate the emotionalism. In all honesty, I have to say this debate has gone in a lot of directions. A lot of things have been said that I certainly don't agree with. I question a lot of the things that have been said in terms of a factual nature. I also think we have gone into a lot of other tangents on things, debating other kinds of things and using the debate about the label as a proxy for a broader debate about biotechnology in the public. I appreciate and I respect that debate. Even though I disagree with things that are said, I respect that; that is why we are here. I also will say in conclusion that we have a responsibility to govern, and governing means that you have to come together and work together. If we are going to get things done, it has to be bipartisan, or it doesn't get done. That is just a fact. So if we are going to do something that is meaningful, that makes sure all of the country has the opportunity to have information and a national standard and the maximum amount of products labeled and that will protect the organic label in all of the country--by the way, the organic protections we have are not in the Vermont law. So if we are going to make sure all the provisions I talked about are not just available in some places but everyplace, that means we have to come together and work together. That means rough-and-tumble negotiations, tough negotiations. These are some of the toughest negotiations I have ever been in, and we have to be willing to have some give-and-take. In the climate we are in today, I know it is a lot easier to go to your corner and point fingers at the other side and to develop conspiracy theories and to create situations and say things that, frankly, are extremely disparaging about people's motives and so on, and that is unfortunate. But we also know that we are people of good will; that is why we get things done. We may disagree on this one particular issue, but we are a group who gets things done when we work together, when we respect all opinions, when we fight as hard as we can to get as much as we can for what we believe in and then stand together to be able to move forward. Debating is great. It is not enough. People expect us to actually get things done. And contrary to what was done in the House, we have a mandatory national labeling system with 25,000 additional products than what is currently being labeled in Vermont or proposed in other States. We strengthen the organic label. We protect consumer laws to be able to enforce when there is fraud or there are other mislabeling issues. And at the same time, we make sure that citizens across the country, not just in one part of the country, are getting their right to know in a way that provides accurate information. I thank everyone. I thank my partner, Senator Roberts. I appreciate the debate on all sides. I hope we are going to be coming to a conclusion shortly so that we can move on and actually implement and share information for consumers about how to access very important information not only about GMO ingredients and labeling, but I believe there are other important pieces of information for consumers to have as well. I think we should be looking for ways to make sure consumers get all of the kinds of information they are interested in as it relates to their food. Thanks again for everyone's hard work and patience this evening as we have held everyone later this evening. I would finally say one thing, if I might, and that is that I have worked in the last 24 hours to do everything I can to help my friends on the other side of this issue be able to get the votes they are interested in as it relates to amendments. Unfortunately, there was not agreement on how to do that. There was an offering two different times on amendments, to have an amendment vote on an important amendment, and folks opposed to the bill did not feel they wanted to do that, that that was enough. I respect that, but we now are at a point where we really need to come to a close and move forward on this important bill. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first I wish to thank the chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. We had some tough negotiations on this issue, and I think we have come to a place that makes sense for farmers and the food industry, as well as consumers. So I wish to thank Senator Roberts. We worked together on a bipartisan basis on issue after issue after issue coming before the committee, and I am sure we will continue to do that. I don't think we have an economy unless somebody makes something and grows something. That is how we have an economy. And we worked very hard to come to a spot where we can actually get things done because that is what people expect us to do. It is great to talk, but people want us to actually solve problems and get things done. So today I rise to discuss an important bipartisan agreement--a hard- fought, tough negotiated agreement that the Senate will soon vote on regarding the issue of GMO labeling. This bill is frankly very different from what passed the House of Representatives about a year ago, I think now, and from what we voted on in March. I thank Senator Roberts and his staff for working in a bipartisan way to get us to the spot where we are now. As everyone knows, I have opposed voluntary labeling at every turn. I don't think it is right to preempt States from having labeling laws and replace it with something that is voluntary. There needs to be a mandatory system, which is what this bill does. I worked to keep what was done by activists known as the DARK Act from becoming law three different times here in the U.S. Senate. Throughout this process, I worked to ensure that any agreement would first recognize the scientific consensus that biotechnology is safe; second, to ensure that consumers have the right to know what is in their food; and third, to prevent a confusing patchwork of 50 different labeling requirements in 50 different States. And while this issue stirs strong emotions in all scientific debate--I certainly understand that--the fact is, this bill achieves all of those goals. For the first time ever, we will ensure we have a mandatory national labeling system for GMOs. Unfortunately, in many ways this debate has served as a proxy fight about whether biotechnology has a role in our food system and in agriculture as a whole. I think that is really fundamentally what the debate is about under this whole issue. When we wrote the farm bill back in 2013, I made it a top priority to support all parts of agriculture. It was very important to me to say that consumers need choices and that we need to support every part of agriculture, and that is what we did in a very robust way. We made important investments and reforms that helped our traditional growers-- conventional growers--and we made significant investments in organics, in local food systems, small farms, and farmers' markets in a way we have not done before as a country. We did this because we recognized that it takes all forms of agriculture to ensure we continue leading the world with the safest, most affordable food supply. That is why, when I hear friends who oppose this bill denying the overwhelming body of science that says biotechnology poses no human health or safety risks while believing the very same National Academy of Sciences that tells us that climate change is real, I have to shake my head. I believe in science; that is why I know climate change is real. I believe in science; that is why the same people--the National Academy of Sciences and over 100 Nobel laureates last week--and when the FDA tells us that biotechnology is safe for human consumption and that there is no material difference between GMO and non-GMO ingredients, I believe science. In fact, as was indicated earlier, over 100 Nobel laureates signed a letter to Greenpeace last week asking them to end their opposition to GMOs over a strain of rice that will reduce vitamin A deficiencies that cause blindness and death in children in the developing world. I stand with the scientific evidence from leading health organizations like the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the FDA, and the World Health Organization, which all say that GMOs are safe for consumption. I find it ironic that those who challenge this science have latched onto comments from the FDA--an agency that has found no scientific evidence that biotechnology threatens human safety--as some type of credible challenge to this agreement. In talking about comments from the FDA, I find it interesting that they omit the first paragraph, which was, by the way, that they don't believe from a health risk safety standpoint that GMOs should be labeled and which is why they have consistently said no to labeling and would, not surprisingly, interpret a biotechnology definition in the narrowest way because they don't believe that GMOs should be labeled. So I stand before colleagues and this Chamber today to say enough is enough. I have been through enough of these debates in the past to know that sometimes, no matter the amount of reason or logic, someone is not going to change their position. I understand that. But I remember Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, who used to say that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. So in that spirit, let's talk about the facts. For the first time, consumers in all 50 States will have a mandatory national GMO label on their food. Right now, if we do nothing, those who get labeling are Vermont and potentially a couple of other States in the Northeast. When we vote, if we vote yes, everyone will have the opportunity to get more information about their food as it relates to GMOs. While many want to hold up the Vermont law, the fact is that law ensures that a little more than 626,000 people have information about their food. There are nearly 16 times more people in Michigan, and they deserve the right to know as well. That is why this mandatory national labeling system is so important. Let's talk about what we are saying--not in a voluntary way as passed the House but requiring one of three choices--three well-regulated ways for companies to disclose information. Some have already chosen what they are going to do and have said: We're going to continue to do on- pack words, like Vermont. There are significant companies that have said: We want certainty. We want this law passed, but this is what we are doing. We also give a choice of an on-pack symbol, and this is not the specific, but it is the idea of what it would be. We have some major retailers in this country who have said: Regardless of what happens, we are only going to get products on our shelves if they have the first-- which is words--or a symbol. So the marketplace is definitely going to drive where this goes, and consumers will continue to drive it. But we also know that an electronic label makes sense if it is regulated in a specific way to make sure that consumers can have access. We also know there are those who want very much to make sure they not only share information that there are GMO ingredients but also important things, such as the National Academy of Sciences saying they are safe for human consumption. So there is some context around this. It is not scare tactics; it is fact based. Let me also say that we know consumers want other kinds of information than just whether or not there are genetically modified ingredients in their food. The No. 1 issue I am told consumers ask about is food allergies. We know others are concerned about antibiotics in meat. There are a whole range of issues people care about. For me and the world of smartphones and electronics, going forward, it makes sense from a consumer standpoint to have a universally accepted platform where you not only get information about GMOs but whether you should be concerned about your food allergies and what is, in fact, in the ingredients. Right now I have friends who have to go to a book in the back of a store to figure out what is going on in terms of food ingredients. Having something that is accessible to all of us who are using these phones would make sense, and that is what we are talking about. So we have three different options, and the companies or stores, if they put them in, will drive what the options are. Let me debunk a little bit of this whole question on allowing an electronic label. First of all, Nielsen tells us that 82 percent of American households right now own a smartphone. It is so interesting to me that the people expressing outrage about technology are using their smartphones in order to tweet that or are going to Facebook and other social media--a socially accepted way for us to be communicating together. So 82 percent of American households own a smartphone, and we are told by Nielsen that very quickly will become 90 percent. For someone who doesn't have a smartphone--or maybe they are in an area where there is concern about broadband, which concerns me, in some rural areas--we make sure that before this is implemented, the USDA has to survey areas where this is a problem and make sure there is more accessibility with additional scanners in the store and additional opportunities for people to be able to get the information and to be able to use this if they don't have a smartphone. They might want to be able to put the can up to a scanner. That is another option as well. Let me also say that more and more, using smartphones and electric labels is very much a part of our lives. We have those doing it for food information right now. You can scan to get a price right now on a can. We have all kinds of apps on our phone, from paying bills, to going through the airport, to connecting with friends. This is very much about the future and how we are going to find out all kinds of information. So it is not unreasonable that, in order to help consumers get information not just on GMOs but on food allergies and other kinds of important issues, we would look at electronic labels in a way to do that. This is an idea that came from the Secretary of Agriculture looking at all of the different requests to their Department for information. I appreciate some of the concerns about the electronic label, but this is not about hiding information because we will be working to make sure there is accessibility in the store for that information. And going forward, we have virtually everyone at some point using their smartphone to communicate--to do business, to do banking, to communicate with friends, and so on. I think this will become less and less of an issue as we go forward. Let me also say one more time that one of three things must be done. Major companies have already said that while they want the certainty of a national law so they can plan--and we don't see disruptions for our farmers and for our grocery store owners and others--they will simply do on-pack words or an on-pack symbol. But there are three choices available. You must do one of those in order to make information available, and I fully expect that consumers will engage with companies to advocate as to which one of those they want to see happen. Let me talk about something else that has not been focused on enough. We have been talking about how to label, which is only one piece of it. Another piece of this is the fact that the bill in front of us ensures that around 25,000 more products will be labeled than are labeled in Vermont or any of the other States we are talking about. Around 25,000 more products will be labeled, and consumers will have the opportunity to know what is in those products. This has really been glossed over, and I think that is very unfortunate. Right now, in Vermont, anything with meat, eggs, cheese, dairy--including broth or anything that has any bit of meat in it--is automatically exempt. This agreement gives consumers information about 25,000 more products that contain meat when the product also contains GMO ingredients. So 25,000 more products-- that is good for consumers and families who want to know. To be clear, this bill has the same tough standards as the European Union and many other countries when it comes to livestock. However, unlike Vermont, this bill doesn't provide the full exemption for a GMO food product just because it contains a trace of meat as an ingredient. What does that mean? In Vermont, you walk in--if it is a cheese pizza, it is labeled; a cheese pepperoni pizza is not labeled, even though it has GMO ingredients. In Vermont, vegetable soup is labeled; vegetable beef soup is exempt, even though it has GMO ingredients. In Vermont, a fettuccine alfredo--I'm getting hungry for lunch--fettuccine alfredo is labeled; fettuccine alfredo with chicken and broccoli is exempt, even though it has GMO ingredients. Now, somebody tell me why that makes any sense from a consumer standpoint. We fix that in this bill. The next thing we focus on is making sure that we maintain and strengthen the organic label, something not done in other versions of the bill. As we know, organics have always been non-GMO. Those families who wish not to buy products with GMOs--those who have wanted to buy products with no GMOs--will always have that option. But for many consumers it is a bit unclear. People question: Well, does ``organic'' mean the same thing as ``non-GMO''? To make it clear, among a number of changes we are making to strengthen and protect the organic label, this agreement ensures that organic producers can now display a non-GMO label in addition to the USDA organic seal. This is also important information not in any other bill and important information to give consumers choices about the food they eat. Let's talk now for a moment about the definitions that have been talked a lot about in terms of biotechnology. First of all, let me say it is the USDA, not the FDA, that is the sole agency that will implement this mandatory national labeling system. They are the ones given the authority to label everything that contains GMOs on the grocery shelf, and that is what this label and definition does. While we saw a lot of fervor last week about comments from the FDA, it does not change the fact that USDA will implement this mandatory national labeling system--not the FDA, which doesn't believe it should be labeled and has the most conservative view on what a biotech definition is. As I said before, it is rather ironic that labeling advocates who clung to these statements when the FDA sent out a memorandum of technical assistance have missed or refused to also indicate that the FDA has repeatedly denied petitions to label GMOs. That is why this is going through the USDA from an information and marketing standpoint and not the FDA--because there is not scientific evidence to put it into the FDA as a health risk. Furthermore, we have heard from many opponents who say the definition in this agreement does not match any other international definition of ``biotechnology.'' The fact is, the definition of ``biotechnology'' varies greatly among the 64 countries with mandatory labeling laws. Our definition is in line with many of those countries and even has the potential to cover more foods. For example, the European Union's definition of ``biotechnology,'' which applies to food produced in 27 countries, clearly does not include gene editing or other new technologies. This agreement we will be voting on provides authority to the USDA to label those things. Japan only requires labels on 8 crops-- 33 specific food products--and exempts refined sugar. Our bill provides authority to the USDA to label refined sugars and other processed products. When people point to international laws, let's really look at the details of those laws before we start holding those laws as the gold standard for GMO labeling laws. I reflect on the statement from Senator Moynihan. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion but not his or her own facts. This bill creates the first-ever mandatory national GMO labeling requirement. We cover 25,000 more foods than are labeled in Vermont or the other States. We protect and strengthen the organic label, which is non-GMO and makes it a clear choice for consumers. We preserve and protect critical State and Federal consumer laws. That is where this will be enforced. One of the major areas of negotiations was to make sure that while there was a preemption of the capacity to label, it did not bleed over into the capacity to enforce fraud or inaccuracy or other issues that relate to labeling. We have been very clear--the enforcement will come from Federal and State consumer protection laws. Finally, we are preventing a patchwork of 50 State labeling laws that--as in every other area of international commerce--we as a country have said does not make sense. So we can nitpick this agreement around the edges. Certainly, in any negotiation, there are always things you would like to see in an agreement that are not there. Certainly, in any bipartisan agreement, that is going to be the case. But this bill moves us forward with a commonsense approach that for the first time guarantees consumers who want to know if their food includes GMOs the ability to know, while at the same time creating certainty for our food producers, our farmers, our manufacturers, and our grocers. I urge colleagues to come together to look at the facts, to look at the science, and to support this bipartisan agreement. We have an opportunity to really get something done--not just talk but to actually get something done that is positive. I hope we will do that. I yield the floor.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Ms. STABENOW. Excuse me. I am sorry.

Ms. STABENOW

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

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today marks the 99th day since President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court--99 days. Yet Republican colleagues continue to refuse to do their constitutional duty and act on the nomination. Just this week, we received more proof of Judge Garland's qualifications and another sign that Senate Republicans should act now. As we all know, the American Bar Association, a highly respected nonpartisan and nonideological group made up of qualified experts in the legal field, announced that it unanimously gave Judge Garland its highest rating of ``well qualified,'' and we know they have tough standards. After poring through the available records and speaking to colleagues and peers who know Judge Garland best, here are some of the examples of what they said about him in the ABA report: ``Garland's integrity is off the scales.'' He is a ``straight shooter'' who is ``brilliant, exceptional, and phenomenal.'' ``Garland is the best that there is. He is the finest judge I have ever met. There is no one who is his peer.'' ``He is very sharp and works hard to find consensus among the panel. He decides the case but does not decide more than is necessary to resolve the case.'' ``He always is the best prepared because he wants to get it right.'' I would say that is pretty good. I would say all those quotes are amazing. In interviews with hundreds of individuals in the legal profession and community who knew Judge Garland, not one person uttered a negative word about him. I wish we could have that. Not one person uttered a negative word about him. The Senate has a constitutional duty, as we all know, to provide advice and consent on Judge Garland's nomination. Yet Senate Republicans have doubled down on the obstructionism and said we should not do anything before January 20, 2017, when the next President is sworn in. This is completely irresponsible. We have a Court right now that today came to a tied decision because they didn't have a full complement on the Court on a very important issue that could have been resolved. Just a week ago, Judge Garland gave the graduation speech at J.O. Wilson Elementary School in Northeast Washington, the school where he tutored students for the past 18 years. He told students in the graduation speech: ``Dreams don't come true by magic. . . . Go ahead and dream, and go ahead and work hard to make those dreams come true.'' Judge Garland has worked hard for over 19 years, and we have seen his dedication to public service throughout his life and his career. People in Michigan and all across the country work hard and do their jobs every day to put food on the table, support their families, and build a brighter future for their children. They know they couldn't refuse to do a really important part of their job for 99 days in a row and get away with it. Tonight Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will play in the annual Congressional Baseball Game. I hope it will not rain. Baseball, a game that runs for nine innings, requires nine players on the field at a time for a complete team. I hope my Republican colleagues who are playing in the game realize that ``we need nine'' is applicable both on the field and on the Court. I call on Republican colleagues to do their job and hold hearings and a vote for Judge Merrick Garland. You have the choice of voting yes or voting no, but we have the responsibility to have the vote.

Ms. STABENOW

Ms. STABENOW. If I might just again clarify with the distinguished Senator, so we are all clear. Right now, an individual can be stopped from getting on an airplane----

Ms. STABENOW. Because they are on a terror watch list, but they can choose, rather than getting on that plane, to go buy a gun and go into a nightclub in Orlando and have carnage and terrorism occur. That is basically what is happening now and that Republican colleagues are saying should continue. Not that they want the violence to continue but they are not willing to act to stop people from getting a gun who are on the terrorist no-fly list.

Ms. STABENOW. I think the American people are scratching their heads at this moment. Hopefully, enough colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us to close this incredible loophole.

Ms. STABENOW. Well, I thank the Senator, and I appreciate the junior Senator from Connecticut for yielding for a question. I first want to thank Senator Murphy and the senior Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from New Jersey, and so many others who have been on the floor. Our Democratic caucus is united in saying: Enough is enough. I am very grateful to our Senators from Connecticut and New Jersey who have come to the floor to lead us in that stand of saying: Enough is enough. So I do have a question, but let me first indicate that when we look at this situation--whether it is Orlando or Sandy Hook or Tucson or Columbine or on and on and on or every day on the streets of our cities and communities across the country--it is time to stop just putting out statements. I don't know about my colleagues on the floor, but I am sure they share with me this sense of frustration of constantly having to put out statements saying that our thoughts and prayers are with the families, because, of course, our thoughts and prayers are with the families, but our actions should be with the families. That is what we are here today to focus on. It is not enough to have words. They expect us to act and to make a difference. I am so grateful for so many Americans from all walks of life and all religions who have joined together. I am so proud of the powerful statements coming from the Muslim community, standing in partnership and friendship with the LGBT community and the Jewish and Christian community at large, and all of those who have said: Enough is enough. Hate crime, act of terror--enough is enough. I want to lift up, before asking my question, two young people from Michigan who were part of the horror 4 days ago. A 25-year-old who had been living in Saginaw, MI, was killed in the Orlando terrorist hate- crime attack. By all accounts he was a wonderful young man. He owned his own business, loved his family, and recently attended his niece's graduation. His friends said: Nobody can say a bad word about him. He always had a smile on his face. He always loved to laugh. Additionally, a Detroit native was also killed in the attack. He worked as a mental health counselor, and he had won awards for his work in the LGBT community. We in Michigan have a long tradition of enjoying hunting, fishing, and outdoor activities. I grew up in northern Michigan. My family is very involved in hunting and legal and safe gun ownership. But that is not what this debate is about. My family--my brothers, my son, my nieces and nephews--and others look at me and say: What is going on here? This is not about whether we can enjoy hunting or legal gun ownership. My family is saying to me: Wait a minute; let me get this straight. There is a terror watch list where you can't fly, but you can buy a gun. What is that? They go into a gun shop, and they get a background check. But you can go to a gun show or on the Internet and not? So I ask my colleague, a great leader on this issue, because I think it is important now to explain a little more about these two things we want to accomplish: What are the two things we want to accomplish? In going through all of this--stopping the regular business of the Senate and saying we have to act; we have to begin to address what we can do for these horrors--what are the two things we are asking for?