Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TESTER. Madam President, before we start, do I need unanimous consent to speak for 15 or 20 minutes?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TESTER. I thank the Presiding Officer. GMO Labeling Bill

Madam President, I come to the floor today to speak out against the GMO labeling bill we will be considering a little bit later this week or next week and to raise concerns for the millions of American families who want to know and who have the right to know exactly what is in their food. I have come to the floor before to endorse GMO labeling legislation and to oppose efforts to keep folks in the dark when it comes to what they feed their families.

This is an issue that impacts each and every one of us. Every day, there is nothing more important than choosing the food we eat. Food provides us with nutrition and energy. Good food helps our kids grow strong and helps us remain healthy as we get older.

I strongly believe that when folks decide what food to purchase, they do so and should do so with all the information available to them. Unfortunately, Members of this body want to keep folks in the dark. They don't want consumers to know exactly what is in the food they are eating.

This fight is nothing new. In 2013, I was on the floor fighting against a piece of legislation called the Monsanto Protection Act, which gave blanket immunity to major seed companies whose products had been or could be a target of litigation. Earlier this year, I was in this Chamber to fight against the DARK Act, which trampled on the rights of States and consumers alike at the request of the food industry.

Once again, the Senate GMO labeling bill provides major food corporations with an out where they can hide behind a complex QR code to prevent folks from knowing if their food contains genetically modified organisms. It brings into question the very question of bioengineering, and it raises concerns about the growing influence agribusiness has on this body.

The bill before us raises all these major concerns and many more. Besides keeping folks in the dark and besides telling States they cannot write their own consumer information laws, this bill gives the U.S. Department of Agriculture complete authority to unilaterally interpret and implement the controversial provisions of this bill.

To make things worse, this is not a collaborative bill. This bill provides corporate agribusiness with handout after handout, but it really doesn't do a thing for family farm producers and the small mom- and-pop shops, the operations that are the backbone of our farming economy. Quite frankly, it undermines the work of organic producers, and it ignores the folks who purchase organic products. To me, it is clear that this is a one-sided bill--a bill that benefits multinational corporations at the expense of family farmers and ranchers.

To be more specific, I want to talk about four major problems I have with this bill.

First, this bill mandates that companies that use genetically engineered ingredients disclose that information on the packaging. On the surface, this looks like a step forward, but as we dig a little deeper, the bill allows companies to meet this mandate in three ways: a written label on a package, which would be fine; a symbol created by the USDA, which could also be fine; but then we have this--a QR barcode that folks have to scan using their smartphones to figure out whether there are genetically modified ingredients in the food they are going to buy. Yes, this bill allows companies to meet the disclosure requirement with this--a QR barcode. If you can tell me what that says by looking at it, you are a much smarter man than I.

The bill before us today specifically mandates that the words next to the QR code say ``Scan here for more food information.'' Those are the words in the bill. So if folks want to know if their cereal contains commodities that originated in a lab, rather than read it on a package clear as a bell, rather than read the words on a package, they will first have to know that the QR code will provide them with information about whether that product contains GMOs and not just more marketing information or a coupon. They would have to know that the phrase ``more food information'' means information about GMOs--maybe, maybe not. Then they would scan that code into their phones. Hopefully they will have cell service in that grocery store, but what happens if they don't? That is not transparency. That is not the consumer's right to know. They could not tell.

If they somehow know what the phrase ``more food information'' means and they are fortunate enough to have Wi-Fi in their grocery store, they will be directed to a Web site, and then maybe they can learn about what is really in the food, potentially genetically engineered products, although it is not clear what else they will have to read about or where that information will be hidden within that Web site.

Other companies--maybe those that aren't as big as the big international agribusinesses--will be allowed to hide that important information behind an 800 number. A mom or dad who wants to know what is in their child's soup or bread will have to call many different 800 numbers in the aisles of the grocery store or scan many of these QR codes. Anybody who has ever gone to a grocery store with a small child in tow knows that is not going to happen. Quite frankly, it is probably not even going to happen if you don't have a small child in tow. Between these ridiculous QR codes and the 1-800 numbers, mom or dad could easily end up standing in a grocery store for hours scanning each individual product with a smartphone or dialing an international call center just to find out basic information about what they are going to eat.

This is completely ridiculous, a nightmare for consumers, and an illusion of transparency. What if companies were allowed to use QR codes instead of basic nutritional information? What if you had to scan a barcode to find out how much fat is in a bag of chips, how much protein is in a can of beans, or how much vitamin C is in a jug of orange juice, and the only clue you had was ``Scan here for more information''?

It is interesting. When I go to a store and buy orange juice, I buy orange juice that is not made from concentrate. That is my choice. I can read it right on the package. I have to tell you, I don't know if that orange juice is any better than stuff that is made from concentrate, but it is written on the package, so I can determine what orange juice I want to buy.

So if you don't want to buy food or if you want to buy food with GMOs in it, you get to scan this little doodad up here, this QR code, and then maybe, if you hit the right Web page, you can find out what is in the food. We did this as a Senate. We did this to allow people to know what is in their food, and we actually think this is an effective method to let people know what is in their food. How would folks in Congress react if lobbyists and dark-money campaigns began pushing to get all nutrition labels off our foods, the same way this bill hides origins of our food? I can tell you there would be a ton of folks here on the floor. They would be raising big hell, rather than just a handful who really aren't afraid of Monsanto or the other massive food corporations.

Hiding massive information behind barcodes and 800 numbers is totally unacceptable. The Senate should not be in the business of hiding information from consumers.

When I grew up, I was told the consumer is always right. We should be empowering those consumers, those American consumers, with more information about the food they purchase, not with less. Don't take it from me--9 out of 10 consumers say they want labeling required for genetically engineered foods. What is the problem with that? It is already done in 64 countries.

When you bring up the issue of consumer rights, of the ability of individuals to have some idea where their food comes from, you are told that GMOs are perfectly safe, but that response completely misses the point and insults every single person who has ever asked about the source of their food.

What this is really about is consumers' right to know--not with a Mickey Mouse QR code, not with a different 800 number on every package of food you pick up, but with simple words that say that product contains GMO or it doesn't. That will allow the consumer to make his choices. That will allow mothers and fathers around this country to be empowered, not to be controlled.

Sixty-four countries, including places you would never ever think of as having transparency--places such as Russia, China, Saudi Arabia-- require GMO labeling.

If this bill passes, we are going to say--and it had 68 votes the last time it came to the floor--that we have GMO labeling. That is a joke. We have a Mickey Mouse GMO labeling law.

So why is the United States the only developed country in the world that doesn't require an easy-to-read GMO label on its food or an easy symbol that signifies it? There is a one-word answer: money. Here is an example. In 2012, California's Proposition 37 would have required GMO labeling. Opponents of that labeling bill spent $45 million to defeat that proposition. Supporters of that labeling bill spent about $7 million. In fact, Monsanto alone spent $8 million. They outspent the supporters alone. That was in 2012.

In 2013, Washington State had an initiative called 522 that required GMO labeling. More than $20 million was spent in opposition. About $7 million was spent in support of the campaign, with $1.6 million coming from Washington residents.

These campaigns and lobbying organizations have spent nearly one-half billion dollars to prevent commonsense labeling standards, and we have caved to that. If these companies are proud of GMO products, they should label them and make it a marketing tool. Instead, they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat commonsense measures that 90 percent of the public of this country supports because they are afraid the word ``GMO'' would hurt their billion-dollar profits.

I am not asking for a skull and crossbones on the package. This isn't about the safety or health of these products. It is about transparency. It is about the public's right to know. It is about putting families ahead of corporations. It is about valuing the consumer's right to know over lobbyists in their slick suits and their influence here. They are denying consumers an easy-to-read national GMO label standard. Why? They are denying folks the transparency they need to make the best decisions for their families. It makes no sense to me.

The second issue I have with this bill is the way it changes the definition of GMOs in a way that will not be good for consumers. To me, it is pretty simple. If a crop is found to develop in nature, then God had his hand in making it. Products that have been genetically modified or engineered in a lab, well, those products are made by man. They are genetically engineered. In this bill, the definition of GMO is very different. This definition is very dangerous, and it will be a major mistake if it becomes a new national standard.

As the bill currently reads, the term ``bioengineering'' requires food to contain genetic material that has been modified by rDNA techniques, and for which the modification could not otherwise happen through conventional breeding or be found in nature.

That sounds harmless enough, but there are some huge problems with this definition. First, rDNA techniques are not the only way we modify plants and animals. Scientists can use cell fusion, macroinjection, gene deletion, gene editing, and that is just what has been invented today. Tomorrow there will be other things they can do to manipulate the genes.

The problem is, the definition requires the food product to contain genetic material that has been modified by rDNA. That is it. There are a handful of products that are so refined, the final product would not be listed as GMO, even when the original plant is GMO--soybean oil, high-fructose corn syrup, to give an example.

So as not to get in the weeds too far, organics certify a process. They certify the process a plant goes through. If you don't have water- soluble fertilizers, if you don't spray it with herbicides, and you have a soil-building program and good crop rotation and all those kinds of things, you can get certified as being organic. That would mean, the way I read this--and I am not a lawyer, but I will bet you we will find out in courts because we will have a lot of lawyers with smiles on their faces if we get this passed--you could take GMO corn, for example, raise it under organic standards, because the oil does not show it is modified rDNA, and it could be organic. That means Roundup Ready soybeans, corn, could ultimately be excluded from labeling of the GMO QR code.

Folks will be purchasing products they think are GMO-free, when nothing could be further than the truth. I am not talking about obscure products. I am talking about very common ingredients. This is a huge loophole and one that was created on purpose. And why? Because if you control the food supply, you control the people.

In this country right now, we have very limited competition in the marketplace. When you sell your grain or your cattle, it doesn't matter. There is not much competition out there because there are just a few major multinational agribusiness companies that are your market. So that is controlled. You buy inputs for your crops--fertilizers, sprays--there are just a few companies. There is no competition in that. They haven't had control of the seed until recently, and now they are getting control of it in a big way.

The farmer always had control of his own seed. He was always able to keep his own seed and use it the next year--not anymore. This bill will promote that going into the future, and we ask why people are leaving rural America. We ask why towns are drying up. We ask why farms are going away. All we have to do is look at this body and you can answer those questions.

The GMO labeling bill--this GMO labeling bill--will exclude some of the most prevalent GMO products in our marketplaces. Do you think that was done by accident? I think not.

The second part of the definition refers to modifications that can be found in nature--extremely vague, and it also threatens transparency. But you know what. There are some natural gene modifications that happen in bacteria--not plants, not animals, in bacteria. Under this definition, that provides another unnecessary loophole that will impact consumers because it says it is OK if it is found in nature.

So we have a QR code and we have a really bad definition. By the way, they could have used the other definition--the one that is standard across the world. They chose not to. They put this definition in and said: Oh, the good thing about this is, it only applies to this bill. So it is OK. Don't worry about it.

The third problem I have with this bill is, it gives the USDA incredible rulemaking power. It allows them to determine what percentage of GMO ingredients would be on the label. It gives the Department the power to establish a national standard with that information. If that isn't enough, the USDA then will design all forms of food disclosure, whether it is text, symbol, or electronic digital link. The Department also must provide alternative labeling options for small packages. Finally, the agency must consider establishing consistency between the labeling standard in this bill and the Organic Food Productions Act of 1990.

Now, why in the heck would that be in there? For the very same reason I talked about earlier. You could literally have a GMO plant be raised under organic conditions, and because of this bill, it could be certified organic.

All of this power we just talked about would be given to unelected bureaucrats in an office building here in Washington, DC--quite a large office building. They are going to make the decisions, and we in production agriculture are going to have to live with it.

The last point I want to make is how this bill is going to negatively impact the organic industry. I know folks have come to the floor to talk about how it is going to be great for organics. The truth is, the organic industry is one of the bright spots in agriculture, quite frankly. For the last 30 years, it has grown between 10 and 30 percent a year. As a matter of fact, it grew 11 percent last year, with $43 billion in sales. That isn't much in terms of the overall food system, but to organics it has moved quite impressively along.

So I would ask: What good does this bill do for organics? I will tell you what it does. It states that products not required to label GMOs don't automatically qualify for non-GMO status. Why not? I mean, that is kind of a given. It also states that organic certification is a means of verifying non-GMO claims in the marketplace.

Look, I have been through organic certifications. This farm is organic. I have been through organic certifications now for 30 years next year, and I can tell you one of the first questions the inspector asks when he comes on the farm is this: Where did you get your seed and is it GMO? Because GMOs are flatly--flatly--forbidden in the organic system.

So what they are saying is what we already have; that organic certification is a means of verifying non-GMO claims. The fact is, if I used GMO plants, I would not be organic and neither would anybody else in production agriculture who uses GMO plants. So that is a biggie-- gives us what we already have.

It clarifies that the narrow definition of GMOs and biotechnology in this bill--remember that definition we had up a minute ago--is only applicable to labeling--only applicable to this bill--and not other relevant regulations, like the organic rule, which is what we already have.

This bill falls drastically short. I know there are trade organizations, such as the Organic Trade Association, and I know there are big companies out there that have said: This is perfect. Go ahead and move forward. I am telling you they haven't read the bill. They haven't looked at the requirements. They haven't looked at hiding behind a QR code. They haven't looked at the definition and what its real impact could be. They haven't looked at giving the USDA incredible latitude. Then, when it is all done, we have to live with it.

In the end, the result will be that this country will have a different production system, I believe. I hope this has positive impacts on production agriculture. As I look at legislation we pass around here, I ask myself: Is this going to help revitalize rural America or is this going to continue the relocation of people and smalltown America going away?

I have said many times on this floor, this is a great country, and one of the reasons it is great is because we have had a great public education system and we have had family farm agriculture. I believe, if we lose either one of those, this country will change and it will change for the worse. I think this piece of legislation is not a step in the right direction for family farm agriculture.

Look, this is a picture of my farm. My grandfather came to this area from the Red River Valley in 1910. When he came out, the place didn't look like this. It was grass. In fact, this wasn't his homestead. He traded my great uncle a team of horses for this place. There wasn't anything there. There used to be an old house that sat here, the homestead shack. It was a pretty nice old house. That is what he built first.

Then, after he patented in 1915, he built this barn in 1916. Now, you have to remember, back then they had nails and hammers. That is it. They didn't have any pneumatics or hydraulics. He and his neighbors got together and built that barn in 1916. It was colder than old Billy out, but they had to have that barn because that barn was where they had their animals. It was farmed with horses then. Unfortunately, 2 years after he built it, a tornado came through, a cyclone, and flattened it. He built it again in 1919. He rebuilt the doggone thing. He just got out there, didn't have anything but a bunch of grass, and put all this money--and that is a pretty good-sized barn. By the way, that blew down so he rebuilt it.

Then, in 1920, they had a drought and he had to move back to North Dakota because they were starving to death. My mom was born back in North Dakota that year, in 1920, and then they moved back a couple years later. They survived the Dirty Thirties. My folks took over in the early 1940s. Dad built that butcher shop. That is where this happened. We put up the shop here, which is equivalent to this. This is where we take care of our equipment now.

This farm today is 1,800 acres. It was 1,200 acres for a good many years. We were able to add another 600 acres to it 20 years ago. This farm is about one-third the size of the average farm in Eastern Montana and has supported two families for its entire life, with the exception of the first 20 years and with the exception of when my mom passed in 2009. My dad passed 5 years earlier.

It is a great place. It is part of who I am. It is bills like this-- not the Dirty Thirties, not the Great Depression, not the attack on Pearl Harbor, not the mass exodus of the 1980s--that will remove my family from this farm after over 100 years.

So when we take up pieces of legislation like this and they are not good pieces of legislation--and we all think this is a great country. It is a great country. We just celebrated our 240th anniversary. When we take up pieces of legislation like this and say ``It will be all right; things will get better,'' guess what. Things don't get better. And things aren't getting better in rural America. The reason is that we are getting swallowed up by agribusiness. We don't make a move anymore without agribusiness. Let me give an example. Take your product to the marketplace; you have a couple of people who will bid on it. Go buy your inputs; you have a couple people who will buy it. It will not be long, folks, before we will be paying taxes on the land, and we will be providing the labor, and the profits will go to the big guys--the guys who can never get enough. This bill will help facilitate that happening.

I fully anticipate that, come Monday or whenever we vote on this, there will be enough votes to pass this because a lot of the folks have read the propaganda put out that you have to have this kind of stuff to feed the world. That may be true. I have never thought that, but it may be true. But the truth is, shouldn't the consumer at least know what is on the food they are eating? Shouldn't they at least have a clue? Shouldn't they at least be given that right in the greatest country in the world? Shouldn't we have more transparency than Russia, not less?

We will see what happens on Monday or whenever we vote on the GMO bill. I do appreciate Senator Stabenow's work on this bill. Unfortunately, it falls woefully short on what we need in this country as far as transparency on food.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source