National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, the Senate is presently on the verge of approving a measure that is supposedly a compromise to provide for GMO labeling. I want to express my thanks and respect for the principal authors of this legislation, my colleagues Senators Roberts and Stabenow. They have worked hard to forge this compromise.

Unfortunately, this falls far short of what is necessary to really inform consumers, provide the essential facts they need to make informed and educated choices about what they want to eat and to have their families eat, what they want to put on their dinner table.

Nothing is more fundamental or important than what we eat. It is essential to energy and the ability of our children to learn. It is important to our productivity as adults. People of all ages care about what they eat, and they care more than ever now because they know how important it is. They also know about the unwanted features of food that could impair their health.

Not long ago, we as a body rejected a measure called the DARK Act, which stood for Deny Americans the Right to Know. Unfortunately, this legislation will continue to leave consumers in the dark about what they are eating. This new compromise is as misguided and anti-consumer as that bill was, even though it may seem better.

The bill also betrays the desires of 90 percent of the American people who want clear, comprehensive, truthful, accurate information-- labeling they can understand and readily see when they shop in their supermarkets or grocery stores, labels that tell them whether there has been genetic engineering.

Not only do 90 percent of the American people want it, but the people of Connecticut have spoken. My State adopted a law that requires it. That law will go into effect if 4 other States comprising 20 million people move ahead with the same legislation. It is not arbitrary. It is not dictatorial or draconian. It is simple, commonsense, effective legislation adopted by the legislature and signed by the Governor of my State.

What probably offends me most about this legislation is that it overrides the will of the people of Connecticut, their determination that they want clear, comprehensive labeling on GMO products. When the Connecticut Legislature adopted its statute--and now as we are considering ours--the debate has never been about whether GMOs are safe or unsafe to consume. I will leave to the scientists--readily delegate to them those judgments about the science of GMOs. Nor is this a debate about whether we should have warning labels. The labeling on these packages would not be in any way a warning to consumers; it would be informational only. The debate here and the objective of this measure is simply to provide information as dispassionately and clearly and objectively as possible. That is the goal, and that is what the legislation I have cosponsored with my colleague Senator Merkley would achieve. That is what we have sought to do through the amendments we have offered to correct the deficiencies in this measure. Among those deficiencies is the lack of an adequate definition of ``bioengineering.'' Right now, that definition fails to include many of the forms of GMOs that could be adopted.

The deficiencies include the reliance on QR codes, which discriminate against people who don't have smartphones or are in areas not served by the Internet or go to shop in stores that don't have that service.

It is also defective in a number of specific provisions, and I will cite just one more. In the provision that applies to additional disclosure options, the Secretary of Agriculture is directed by this legislation that when there is insufficient access to bioengineering disclosure through electronic or digital disclosure methods, he ``shall provide additional and comparable options to access the bioengineering disclosure.'' The Secretary of Agriculture will become responsible and accountable for the cost, the mechanical process, and all of the aspects of providing this disclosure when, in fact, electronic or digital disclosure methods available to manufacturers or retailers are insufficient. What will be the cost? What will be the obstacles? There has been no hearing that would indicate those facts.

So what we have here is a failure of drafting and of process. In this sweeping so-called compromise, the laws of Connecticut will be decimated. My State will be stripped of robust, grassroots GMO labeling measures--including in Maine and Vermont--not only applying to food but also to seeds planted in the ground and information about whether they have been bioengineered. These deficiencies are fundamental to this legislation. I repeat, the issue here is not about warning and not about safety, although those topics are reasonable to debate. It is simply about the public's right to know.

I have a basic faith in our markets in the United States and in our free enterprises that consumers will make smart judgments and wise choices if they have the information that enables them to do it. But only if they have that information.

My question to the proponents of this bill is this: What do we have to fear by providing that kind of information that consumers need and want, and that 15,000 Connecticut citizens have written to me asking to defend, and that constituents of mine, such as Tara Cook-Littman, have shown is desperately and dramatically needed? Tara has said:

Anything short of on package, clear labeling shows total disregard for what it is like to be a mom shopping in a store with her children. When I'm shopping, I need to get in and out as fast as I possibly can. And, whether a product contains GMOs is only one of the many things I am looking for before making my purchasing decision. My son is allergic to nuts so I always look at packages to make sure the item is nut free. I like to know the calories, fat and sugar of an item before I purchase it. I look at how many ingredients a product has. All of that information I can get in seconds. I pick up the item, I scan the box for the information I need and keep moving. I should be able to do the same for GMOs. I would never have the time to pull out my phone and scan the packages or go to a website in order to get the simple information I am looking for. Assuming I would have the time or ability shows a total lack of understanding about shopping in the real world. When shopping for a family of 5, my shopping cart could end up having over 50 items. Having to scan or look up items on a website is not feasible.

I agree with Tara, and I agree with anyone who has shopped and has the same views. In a crowded grocery store at the end of the day or with a child, especially a young child, navigating these aisles is challenging enough. The last thing a parent has is spare time to take out their phone and scan every product before placing it in their cart, even assuming the store has the Internet service that would enable someone to do so, and even assuming that person has a smartphone.

This proposal is simply not practical, logical, or fair to consumers. It is in fact anti-consumer. It is unacceptable as a consumer protection measure. Let's give States the freedom to protect their own people, as Connecticut has done. That is the reason I proposed an amendment that would restore the right of States to adopt such legislation, and make this legislation a floor rather than a ceiling that enables States to do more.

I thank my colleagues, Senators Leahy and Sanders, as well as Senator Tester and others, who have championed this cause, and, most importantly, Senator Merkley, who has helped to lead this effort. I believe the concerns we have expressed are urgent and immediate. Even at this late hour, I urge my colleagues to reject this measure as it has been drafted now, and adopt these commonsense amendments that will improve it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Merkley, for his very powerful arguments for improving this law. I wish to speak about the GMO labeling act. But before I do so, I wish to speak separately about concerns that are on the hearts and minds of every American today after the shootings that we have seen in Louisiana and Minnesota. These are incidents that weigh on our hearts and our minds as we watched--literally watched--the videos that have been played again and again and again on TV around the Nation.

I echo President Obama's eloquently expressed concerns shared by many Americans after the recent tragic shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota. My heart breaks for the families and communities. I agree with President Obama that acknowledging we must do better in no way contradicts our respect for law enforcement.

As a former prosecutor, a U.S. attorney, and attorney general of my State for 20 years, I worked with law enforcement officials closely for more than two decades. I worked with them with great admiration for their courage and professionalism. I understand and appreciate the challenges they face every day, their selflessness in the line of duty, and their commitment to keeping our communities safe, often at great sacrifice to themselves.

Tragedies like the deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling threaten to undermine trust and understanding between law enforcement and the communities they serve. That is why I fought to pass the Death in Custody Reporting Act--bipartisan legislation which requires States to report to the U.S. Department of Justice information regarding individuals who die every year while in police custody or during the course of an arrest. I have also supported funding to help local law enforcement agencies cooperate and collaborate more closely with communities and build trust by purchasing and using body-worn cameras, which have been shown to reduce citizen complaints by as much as 88 percent.

We have much more to do in effectively assuring justice for communities of color. We must have an honest conversation about the role of race in society, not just in the disparities in the criminal justice system but in our economy, our media, and our communities. Words alone are insufficient. We must act. I will continue to work with my colleagues in Washington, across the country, and Connecticut to bring Americans together and make our society more just for all.

I regret very sincerely the absence of an opportunity to offer these amendments that might improve this bill and enable us to provide the American people with what they need and deserve--the best possible legislative product this body can provide, a legislative product that matches the desires of 90 percent of Americans to know more about what they are eating, the 15,000 Connecticut people who have corresponded with me, and the many individuals, activists, and advocates who tell me they believe they have a right to know what is in their food when it comes to GMOs.

The science is beyond my advocacy, but the consumer protection issue is one all of us are experts on. We all know we need better and more information, and so to make access to that information more difficult and cumbersome and even costly for Americans flies in the face of what we regard as free and open and fair markets and free enterprise. It is more than just about the doctrines of deceptive and misleading marketing which the good guys in the world of business certainly want to avoid. It is about providing more information, as much accurate information as possible, because consumers have a right and a need to know. Throwing roadblocks in the way of that right doesn't do justice for them. They deserve better.

So I will continue this fight. We are near an hour now where we will vote. I greatly respect the dedication of my colleagues who have worked hard on this measure. My very distinguished and able friend from Michigan Senator Stabenow is now with us. She and I are in agreement, my guess is, 99 percent of the time, and I respect as well our colleague Senator Roberts, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, but the issue here is supremely important to the health and well-being of Americans--not just today, not just children and families at this moment but for years and decades to come. While the science may be debated, the consumer protection issue is beyond doubt. Let's open information to the American consumers, make it more available, not less so; remove the obstacles, not create more hurdles; reduce the costs, not raise the expense; and provide the access that Americans need to full and fair information about GMOs that may be in their food.

Thank you, Mr. President, and

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source