National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, the most important three words in our Constitution are the first three words: ``We the People.'' When our Founders were crafting our Constitution, they put those words in oversized print so that hundreds of years later Members of Congress-- the House and Senate--and citizens across this Nation would remember that this is what our Constitution is all about--``We the People.'' It is not ``we the powerful'' or ``we the privileged.'' It is ``We the People.''

President Jefferson said that we can only claim to be a republic to the degree that the decisions of our government reflect the will of the people. He went on to say that the only way our government will make decisions which reflect the will of the people is if the people have an equal voice. An example of that was the town square, where each individual could stand up and make their position known before a vote was held on whom they were going to elect, and so on and so forth.

The challenge today is that the town square is the television, radio, and Web. Unfortunately, those are not free, the way the town square was in Jefferson's day, and that means that the role of money can change everything.

Unfortunately, we have had a couple of Supreme Court decisions that do not do due accord to the very heart of our Constitution because they have essentially said that even though the commons, or town square, is for sale, we are going to allow the few people and corporations with billions of dollars to buy up the town square and use the equivalent of a megaphone sound system to drown out the voice of the people. That is the opposite of what ``We the People'' is all about, and that is the opposite of what our Constitution is all about.

Periodically, I have come to the floor to talk about a variety of issues that are relevant to the Jefferson vision--that we can only be a republic to the degree that our decisions reflect the will of the people. The issue I will talk about today--and this is an issue that Democrats, Republicans, and Independents overwhelmingly support--is about whether or not their food has been genetically modified, and if so, should those ingredients be listed on the package.

I am raising this issue today because on July 1 of this year, Vermont will have a new law which will require labeling on the packages of food that have genetically modified ingredients, and that has led to a conversation here in this Chamber about whether we at the Federal level should allow that to happen. Should we allow Vermont to make this requirement? There are a lot of food producers who say: We really don't want the people to know about the details of their food. Well, I think Americans across this country disagree.

As I mentioned, the overwhelming majority support the right to know. The argument has been made that we can't allow State after State or county after county to have conflicting standards about what we list on food labels because that would be impossible for interstate commerce, and that is a fair point. How can a food manufacturer be expected to accommodate a multitude of different labeling requirements from county to county, city to city, or State to State? That is a fair case if there is a risk of multiple standards. There is no risk of that at this moment because only one State has passed a standard which will be going into effect in a couple of months. Just as we have seen with other policies across this Nation, to something that one State tries, another State might say: Yes, let's do that but in a slightly different way. So there is a legitimate concern about conflicting standards. Again, it is not an immediate concern or something to cause this Chamber to act today. But if indeed other jurisdictions say they would like to have the same type of information available to their citizens, who also overwhelmingly want that information, then there is a potential for that and a legitimate cause for us to discuss it here.

Here is the thing. If you are going to take away the ability of cities, counties, and States to respond to the citizens' desire to know about whether there are GMOs, or genetically modified ingredients, in their food, then you have to replace it with a national standard that answers that question. If you fail to do so, you are simply denying the rights of citizens across the country to know what is in their food, and that is just wrong.

There is a name for the bill for denying Americans the right to know, and it is called the DARK Act, or Deny Americans the Right to Know Act. It is appropriate that it be called the DARK Act because it is all about keeping consumers in the dark about something they would like to know. There are many people here who say: Well, we know better than consumers. They want to know, but we don't want them to know because there is no reason they should know because why would they have any concern if they knew all the facts? Is that our decision to make?

We decided to label food and let people know whether there is salt in it. Some people want it, some people don't. We decided to put calories on the package. Some people want more calories, and some want less, but they have the right to know. Some people want preservatives to make it taste better and some don't, and so on and so forth. It is simply the consumer's right to know and make choices accordingly.

This conversation is not about whether GMO food is safe to eat. Person after person has come to this floor and said it is safe to eat, there is no proven impact on citizens, and so therefore it is legitimate to strip citizens from the right to know. There are lots of ingredients we put on packages that have no carcinogenic effects, but citizens want the full list, and that is what we provided them. Some want to know the individual pieces of that story.

Let's turn back to this question about the fact that GMOs themselves--genetically modified plants--are not substantially in one camp or another, wonderful or terrible. There are all kinds of genetic modifications that have taken place. For example, this chart shows golden rice. Golden rice has been modified to have vitamin A. In parts of the world where there is vitamin A deficiency, this has been very beneficial. Let's turn to carrots. Some carrots have been modified to treat for a genetic disorder called Gaucher's disease, a metabolic disorder where people lack a specific enzyme which helps rid the body of fatty substances that then accumulates causing enlarged livers and spleens and bone damage, bruising, and anemia. So people are very happy we have a way to address that.

Researchers have been developing sweet potatoes that withstand multiple viral infections commonly encountered in Southern Africa. That enables sweet potatoes to be grown and be part of the subsistence and is a substantial source of food in that region. There are also genetic modifications that cause concerns. Most genetically modified crops grown in the United States have been altered to confer resistance to a chemical herbicide known as glyphosate. Glyphosate is a weed killer, and essentially as the application of glyphosate has gone up dramatically from 1994 to the current time--we can see the huge increase in the application of this weed killer on this chart--we have had a corresponding general depletion of the monarch butterfly in those regions where glyphosate is used. That is a concern. Monarchs have been crashing, and that is a concern to folks.

Look at and think about the runoff. If you put billions of gallons of weed killer on crops, and there are billions of gallons running into the waterways, it has an impact on the waterways. It changes the makeup of the waterways because of the weed killer killing various organisms within the streams. Herbicides in our waterways can have a negative impact on fish, mussels, amphibians, and microorganisms.

There is also a challenge in which plants evolve in response to the applications of glyphosate. We can end up with what are called superweeds, which are weeds that have been in the presence of the herbicide so often that the natural mutations occurring cause the weeds to evolve and they become superweeds. We had the same problem with these corn-destroying rootworms. They have been evolving to be resistant to the pesticide that is placed into the plant cell by genetic modification.

In short, there are competing considerations to balance, some benefits and some concerns. Some people have reached the conclusion that they are very comfortable consuming genetically modified foods, and other individuals can reach a different equally justifiable conclusion that they have concerns and want to know more about the specific types of modification. The way they find out is, they get an alert on the package to show there are GMO ingredients and they can go to the Web site and look at the herbicide involved. That is why labeling matters. It is an alert to the citizens so they can gain more information and decide if they are comfortable or uncomfortable.

What we have seen are companies that are starting to say, because we value the relationship with our customers, because our company believes in having high integrity in that relationship, we do not want to be part of the DARK movement--the ``deny Americans the right to know'' movement. We want to be part of the movement that says if our consumers want to know, we are going to give them that information.

There are a variety of companies that have announced they are going to provide that information on their foods. One of them is the Mars company. Here I have a package of M&Ms, and right on the package they are now disclosing. They have a phrase. I know it would be impossible to read this so we have enlarged this a bit and reproduced it. It says ``partially produced with genetic engineering.'' So they give a heads- up on every package of M&Ms across the country. They give a heads-up to consumers, and if they want to know more about the details, they can contact Mars to find out about the details. That is integrity. That is honoring citizens who have a desire to know what is in their food.

We have all grown up seeing the wonderful pictures of Campbell's soups in advertisements and the warm hearty meal of tomato soup. I know when I was sick as a child I always looked forward to that Campbell's tomato soup. Campbell's has said: We want to honor the integrity of the relationship with our consumer. We are not going to be part of the ``deny Americans the right to know'' movement. We are not going to be on the side of the DARK, and we are going to be on the side of information that citizens desire to have. They are putting labels on their products, and a number of companies are following suit in honor of protecting the consumer's right to know.

That is certainly commendable, and I commend the companies that do not feel like they are trying to mislead or hide from their consumers, but in fact support the integrity of the relationship with the folks who buy their products. Some of the companies that have done this are ConAgra, General Mills, Kellogg's, and, as I mentioned, Mars. They have already begun to label their products in anticipation of Vermont's July 1 requirement.

Vermont has a 6-month grace period--so, again, it is not just around the corner--but the beginning period companies are asked to meet is July 1. Because companies are now putting it on their labels, they are discovering there is nothing scary to consumers about it. Just like anything else on the ingredients list on labels of packages, it is information that different consumers can evaluate when it matters to their life.

There is a group of Senators who have said they do want to be part of the DARK Act, deny Americans the right to know. So we will have a voluntary labeling plan nationally. We will take away State's rights to put information on the package and replace it with a voluntary request for companies to disclose. That is no justification for taking away the ability of States to require what consumers want, which is not a voluntary disclosure, it is a required disclosure. If a State wants to do that, they should be honored. If we take away that right, we need to do a replacement at the national level.

As a part of this movement, this Deny Americans the Right to Know Act, they say: You know what. We are willing to suggest that companies put a barcode on their product and consumers can scan that code or they can put a quick response computer code, which is a square code with all the little squares on it--something like what you have on an airline ticket. They suggest that we put this quick response code on it, and if somebody wants to know what is in our product, they can scan it with their smartphone and look it up on a Web site. That is not a consumer- friendly label. That is a scam.

Not all consumers have a smartphone. Not all consumers have a digital plan that allows them to scan something in that fashion. They don't all have a phone with a camera. We are asking them to have to spend money out of their phone plan in order to look up information that should have just been on the package in the first place. That is a tax. That is a DARK Act tax on American consumers.

Some of my colleagues who talk about not putting taxes on individuals just voted for that DARK tax a few weeks ago. I hope they reconsider that type of imposition on the moms and dads and brothers and sisters throughout America. No one going down the aisle to shop is going to sit there and compare four different soups by taking pictures of four different soups and going to four different Web sites to look up that information. Plus, consumers are also disclosing information about themselves when they go to those Web sites. That is an invasion of privacy on top of the DARK tax that my colleagues want to impose on American consumers. It is wrong on multiple levels.

Some of my colleagues say: Let's put an 800 number on the label, with no explanation of why it is there. Well, you can take most products in America and you can probably find an 800 number somewhere on that package with some corporate information line, but when you put an 800 number on with no explanation of why it is there, that is not consumer information. That is like taking an ingredients list on the package and replacing it with an 800 number. Call this and we will read you a list of ingredients on the phone. It is absurd, it is ridiculous, and it is offensive to try to say that type of scam is a replacement for consumer-friendly information right on the package.

Do you want to know how to determine whether you are being true to the desire of consumers to have a consumer-friendly label? Well, I will tell you. It is called the 1-second test. We have a product on the shelf. We pick it up, turn it over, and look--1 second. I see the answer that there are or are not genetically modified ingredients in this package. That is the 1-second test. That is a fair replacement for State standards.

It can be done in a variety of ways. There can be a symbol on the package. I suggest that the FDA or USDA can choose a symbol. Brazil chooses to have a key for transgenic in a triangle. We can do that. We can put a ``B'' on it for biotechnology. We can put a ``G'' or ``GM'' for genetically modified. There are all sorts of options that would be a simple way for consumers to see what is there. We can put a phrase such as Mars has done on their candy or we can put an asterisk on the ingredients that have been modified with a phrase below to explain the asterisk. All of those are possible, but an unlabeled phone number, an unlabeled barcode or quick response code--because it is a deliberate effort to pretend you are solving something when you are not, that is a shameful scam, and it should never pass scrutiny on the floor of the Senate.

I said earlier that citizens across this country want a consumer- friendly label. We can look to a survey that was done. This is a 2016 likely election voters survey that was done in November of 2015, and it shows that 89 percent of Americans said they would like to have the information on the label. They say they favor labels on foods that have been genetically engineered or contain genetically engineered ingredients. So it is basically 9 out of 10 who not only favored but strongly favored such labeling. To put it simply, 9 out of 10 Americans want the information on the label, and rounding off, 8 out of 10 feel very strongly about this.

Here is something that is interesting. We are often divided by party here. The Republicans are sitting on the right side, the Democrats are on the left side. There is partisan division--maybe Independents have a view in the middle. On this issue, Democrats believe, 9 out of 10, rounding off, that we should have these labels. Republicans believe, 9 out of 10, that we should have these labels. Wouldn't it be ironic if the one thing Americans can agree on--whether they are east coast or west coast or North or South or Democrat or Republican or Independent-- the one issue they can all agree on, this body decides to do the opposite and take away that ability. That certainly counters the fundamental principle that Jefferson put forward of the ``we the people'' democracy. We can only claim to be a republic to the degree that what we do reflects the will of the people.

So we should think about that a lot because there is a lot of conversation about folks who want to spring a surprise on the American people. They want to come down here to the floor on some bill in the near future, with some amendment or some motion or some reconsideration, and spring a surprise and drive the DARK Act through with little public notice. Why is that? Because they are afraid of the opinions of the American people. They want to hide their decision in a short period of time with no ability for the American people to be filled in on the fact that they are attempting to pass legislation that overturns what 90 percent or 9 out of 10 Americans want. So we need to be aware of this.

I encourage my colleagues: Do not be part of this ``deny Americans the right to know'' movement--this movement that is opposed by 9 out of 10 Americans in the Democratic camp, in the Republican camp, in the Independent camp, in every geography of America. Don't be part of going so profoundly, so fundamentally, so overwhelmingly against the will of the American people.

We put a lot of things on packages because the American people ask for that information. If you buy in a grocery store of any size, they are required to put whether fish is farm raised or wild. Why do we require that? It is not because being farm raised is going to kill people; it is because citizens have a desire to know and to vote with their food dollar--vote with their food dollar for something they believe to be important. It may have to do with the taste of the product. It may have to do with the difference in antibiotics that are used in farmed versus wild. It may have to do with their desire to envision that food when it was swimming the broad, beautiful Pacific Ocean, the incredible salmon of the Pacific Ocean and the salmon of the Atlantic Ocean. But the point is, it is their right to know. Nothing much is as important to us as what we put into our bodies.

People fundamentally feel they should be able to have full information. We, indeed, provide information on whether juice is reconstituted from concentrate or is fresh, not because it will cause you to get sick, not because it is unhealthy to consume, but because consumers desire to know and they want to exercise their food dollars appropriately. Some people say: I really would like to have the stuff the way it was squeezed out of the fruit rather than frozen and condensed and reconstituted. So we provide that information because of that citizen desire. Should we not honor our citizens in this issue as well? Isn't it wrong for a group of Senators to plot to come to this floor and to put forward an amendment or put forward a reconsideration or put forward a bill on short notice so that the American people have little chance to weigh in? Personally, I think it is very wrong. That is why I am speaking today.

It is not as if this question of putting labels on food is something new or different; it is being done all around the world. Sixty-four countries, including 28 members of the European Union and Japan and Australia, already require mandatory GMO labeling. We can add Brazil to that list. We can add China to that list.

China has no democratic forum in which to respond to the will of the people. The decisions are top down. Yet the leadership of China has said: Our consumers care enough about this that we are going to disclose that information. Isn't it profoundly ironic that here in the United States of America, where citizens have a voice, a group of Senators are trying to suppress that voice, are trying to implement and deny Americans the right to know, when the leaders of China have decided this is information consumers deserve?

Let me return to where I started--the vision of a ``we the people'' democracy. We have gone far afield from that. The role of money in politics has put us in a very different position because that money weighs in, and it corrupts the fundamental nature of our legislative process. That is why we are having this debate over denying Americans the right to know when 9 out of 10 want that information--because of the corrupting power of massive concentrations of campaign cash in our system.

So let's do something we should do all the time: Set aside the campaign. Set aside the desire to raise money. Set aside those issues and ask yourself, aren't we here to help pursue the will of the people? In this case, in our ``we the people'' democracy, shouldn't we give our citizens the same right to know--a right they overwhelmingly expect and demand--as 64 other countries in the world?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source