Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by congratulating Senators Stabenow and Cochran for their hard work on this very important piece of legislation, especially for rural States such as Vermont, but I guess for everybody who eats, which is the majority of the people in our country, I would imagine.

I want to spend a few minutes talking about some important amendments I am offering. I think one of them--the amendment I will talk about first--will be coming up for a vote either later tonight or tomorrow, and that deals with the right of States to label genetically engineered food. That is amendment No. 965.

This year, the Vermont State House of Representatives passed a bill by a vote of 99 to 42 requiring that genetically engineered food be labeled. I can tell you with absolute certainty the people of Vermont want to know what is in their food and are extremely supportive of what the State legislature has done. But this is an issue certainly not just limited to Vermont.

Yesterday, as I understand it, the Connecticut State Senate, by an overwhelming vote of 35 to 1, also passed legislation to require labeling of genetically engineered food. In California, our largest State, where the issue was on the ballot last November, 47 percent of the people there voted for labeling, despite the biotech industry spending over $47 million in a campaign in opposition to that proposition. That is an enormous sum of money, and yet 47 percent of the people voted for labeling of GMOs.

In the State of Washington, some 350,000 people signed a petition in support of initiative 522 to label genetically engineered foods in that State. In fact, according to a recent poll done earlier this year, approximately 82 percent of the American people believe labeling should take place with regard to genetically engineered ingredients.

All over this country people are increasingly concerned about the quality of the food they are ingesting and the food they are giving to their kids. People want to know what is in their food, and I believe that is a very reasonable request.

What I am proposing today--the amendment I am offering--is certainly not a radical concept. In fact, the requirement of labeling genetically modified food exists today in dozens and dozens of countries throughout the world, including our closest allies in the European Union, including Russia, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Brazil, China, New Zealand, and other countries. So this is not some kind of new and crazy idea. In fact, it exists all over the world.

At a time when many of my colleagues express their strong conviction about States rights and that States should be allowed to have increased responsibilities, this amendment should be supported by those people who, in fact, believe in States rights. The reason for that is when the State of Vermont and other States go forward in passing legislation to label genetically modified food, they have been threatened by Monsanto and other large biotech companies with costly lawsuits. So States are going forward, doing what they think is proper for their own people, and then Monsanto and other very large biotech companies are coming forward and saying: We are going to sue you.

Now, Monsanto is arguing, as one of the major grounds for their lawsuit--which I believe is absolutely incorrect--that States do not have the right to pass legislation such as this; that it is, in fact, a Federal prerogative and not something a State can legally do.

I believe very strongly that Monsanto is wrong, but that is precisely what this amendment clarifies.

Today we have an opportunity with this amendment to affirm once and for all that States do have the right to label food that contains genetically engineered ingredients.

Let me briefly tell you what is in this amendment. This amendment finds that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly reserves powers in the system of federalism to the States or to the people. This amendment finds that States have the authority to require the labeling of foods produced through genetically engineering or derived from organisms that have been genetically engineered.

Furthermore, this amendment requires that 1 year after the enactment of this act, the Commissioner of the FDA and the Secretary of Agriculture shall undertake the necessary regulations to carry out this amendment.

There is strong precedent for labeling GMOs. The FDA already required the labeling of over 3,000 ingredients and additives. If you want to know if your food contained gluten, aspartame, high-fructose corn syrup, trans fats or MSG, you simply read the ingredient label. Millions of people every day look at labels: How many calories are there in the food? What are the ingredients in the food? This simply does what we have been doing as a nation for many years, only right now Americans are not afforded the same right for GE foods.

Monsanto and other companies claim there is nothing to be concerned about with genetically engineered food. Yet FDA scientists and doctors have warned us that GE foods could have new and different risks, such as hidden allergens, increased plant toxin levels, and the potential to hasten the spread of antibiotic-resistant disease.

This is a pretty simple amendment. It basically says the American people have a right to know what they are eating. This is legislation I know the people of Vermont, I gather the people of Connecticut, and I think people all over this country would like to see agreed to. I ask for its support.

There are a couple of other amendments I would like to briefly discuss, having to do with SNAP. One of them deals with the need for seniors to be better able to access SNAP. It is no secret that in our country today, millions of seniors are struggling to get by on limited incomes. The result of that is that after they pay their prescription drug costs or their rent or their utilities, they do not have enough money to spend on food. It is estimated that some 1 million seniors are going hungry in the United States of America. That is something we should be embarrassed about and an issue we should address as soon as possible.

Clearly, the toll that inadequate nutrition has for seniors impacts their overall health. My strong guess is that this amendment will end up saving us money because when seniors get good nutrition, they are less likely to fall, break their hips, end up in the emergency room, end up in the hospital.

I think from a moral perspective, from a cost perspective, we want to make sure all seniors in this country, regardless of their income, have the nutrition they need.

SNAP plays a crucial role in our country in reducing hunger. In 2011, SNAP raised nearly 5 million people out of poverty. But here is the main point I wish to make: Only 35 percent of eligible individuals over age 60 participated in SNAP in 2010. In other words, there are many seniors out there who could benefit from SNAP but for a variety of reasons, one of which I am addressing right now, they do not participate.

As you may well know, the SNAP application process can be confusing and cumbersome for many households, especially for seniors. Individuals apply for SNAP sometimes by visiting an application center, which is a challenge for people with mobility issues. If you are a senior and not able to get out of your home, if you cannot afford transportation, getting to that center can be very difficult.

It is also challenging when dealing with an application over the telephone if you are hard of hearing--which clearly many seniors are. At the same time, the complicated interview process costs local, State, tribal, and Federal governments additional administrative dollars.

The SNAP amendment I am offering is pretty simple. It will help alleviate hunger by allowing seniors to more easily apply for and access SNAP benefits in order to reduce barriers for seniors applying for SNAP.

This amendment proposes to do the following. It allows States to deputize, which in this case means to certify nonprofit organizations and area agencies on aging that are meeting with seniors directly and helping them with their SNAP application to conduct the interview on behalf of the State. The State agency would still determine eligibility.

Further, States would have the flexibility to deputize only the agencies that have the capacity to fulfill the State's interview requirements on their behalf. This amendment does not waive any documentation requirements or ease any other requirements. Eligibility for the benefits must still be verified. What it does do is reduce duplication of effort and ease the burden on vulnerable families and seniors for whom it is a challenge to travel to a State office or wait for days at a friend's house who has a phone to make a call.

All this is doing is saying: If we want to make sure seniors stay healthy, get the nutrition they need, stay out of the emergency room, stay out of the hospital, let us make it easier for them to take advantage of the programs that are currently available. In this case, the SNAP eligibility process for seniors is pretty complicated and sometimes people who want to be in the program simply are unable to do that. I hope we could have support for that amendment.

The other SNAP amendment deals with an equally important issue of people who are wrongfully dropped from the SNAP, often due to an administrative error. The current system is inefficient. We are spending government money that should be going to help people buy food and instead we are spending it on paperwork and bureaucracy. Improvements I am proposing will help alleviate hunger as fewer people will go without the benefits they need, and State and Federal resources will be used more effectively.

My amendment requires the USDA to track information from States on the problem of churn. That is the term used when eligible people are dropped from the program and then must reapply. The USDA and advocacy groups have identified children as a key problem in the administration of SNAP benefits. Having people reapply who never should have been dropped from the benefit in the first place adds to the caseload burden.

Tracking the information is only a first step. Then we must find solutions to reduce the problem so people do not lose their benefits, whether that be improved training, clearer forms and notices or simpler recertification processes. These improvements will reduce hunger by making sure people get the benefits for which they are eligible and which they so desperately need.

The last issue I briefly wish to touch on deals with the need for the USDA to help us understand, through a study, the impact that global warming is having on agriculture. We all know we are looking at record-setting droughts in Australia, Brazil, and locations in America. U.S. cities matched or broke at least 29,000 high-temperature records last year. Ice-free Arctic summers will be with us within a couple of years. That is the reality of the moment.

The impact of global warming clearly will be felt far and wide, but farmers across the country are among those who will suffer the most. Warmer temperatures, water shortages and droughts and other extreme weather disturbances will force producers to alter practices, change crops, and spend more money to sustain their operations.

This amendment simply asks the USDA to do a study to provide us with a better understanding of how changing climate will impact agriculture across the country and help farmers plan and adapt to those changes. It will help local communities and States make critical adjustments now, and it will reduce the vulnerability of the entire agriculture sector to the damaging consequences of climate change.

We think this is an important amendment. State farmers need to have the information about what scientists believe will be happening, the work they are doing for years to come. I ask for support for that amendment.

In the past we have successfully offered an amendment on community gardens. In Vermont, now schools, communities are working on gardens all over the State. We had a national program passed last year as well. This would simply expand that program to allow schools and communities to engage with limited help from the Federal Government in community gardens, teaching kids about the foods they are eating and about agriculture. It is a very inexpensive concept, which has been working very successfully and I think needs to be expanded.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source