[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 115 (Wednesday, July 22, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H5345-H5357]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1599, SAFE AND ACCURATE FOOD
LABELING ACT OF 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1734,
IMPROVING COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS REGULATION ACT OF 2015
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 369 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 369
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1599) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act
[[Page H5346]]
with respect to food produced from, containing, or consisting
of a bioengineered organism, the labeling of natural foods,
and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Agriculture now printed in
the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule
an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 114-24 modified by the
amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
points of order against that amendment in the nature of a
substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any
Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill
or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in
order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1734) to amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to
encourage recovery and beneficial use of coal combustion
residuals and establish requirements for the proper
management and disposal of coal combustion residuals that are
protective of human health and the environment. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in
order except those printed in part C of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
{time} 1230
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Loudermilk). The gentleman from Alabama
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. BYRNE. House Resolution 369 provides a structured rule for
consideration of H.R. 1734, the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals
Regulation Act of 2015, and H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food
Labeling Act of 2015.
Mr. Speaker, when I am back in southwest Alabama for district travel,
I spend a lot of time visiting with small-business owners and holding
townhall meetings. At almost every event I hold, someone mentions how
regulations are having a negative impact on them, their business, and
their employees. These regulations cover everything from energy to
health care to tax policy. Too many of my constituents are drowning in
red tape, and they are forced to spend too much money and time
complying with burdensome regulations.
Now, I get it; a lot of people in Washington think that they know
best. These bureaucrats get in a room, and they start scheming on how
they can solve all these problems, and our answer is almost always that
we need more rules and regulations.
Mr. Speaker, this is entirely the wrong approach. This kind of top-
down, Washington knows best strategy is not working, and it is putting
a real burden on my constituents in Alabama and people all over the
country. That is why this rule allows for the consideration of two
bills that are focused on simplifying the regulatory process in two
very important areas, energy and agriculture.
Being from Alabama, I know a thing or two about these topics. Anyone
who has ever spent time in lower Alabama during July or August knows
just how hot it can get, so that means families down there have to
spend a pretty penny on their power bills during these summer months.
Well, under the Obama administration's EPA, regulations on the energy
sector have skyrocketed. The costs from these regulations are most
certainly passed on to the consumer in the form of higher power bills,
and the compliance burdens associated with these regulations are making
it harder and harder for utilities to deliver reliable power to their
customers.
That is why the current enforcement structure of EPA's rule on coal
combustion residuals, or CCRs, is so concerning. While most of us were
pleased that the EPA decided to regulate CCR as a nonhazardous solid
waste, we are left with civil suits in place of commonsense enforcement
measures to make sure the industry is complying with EPA standards.
This creates uncertainty among industry and a patchwork of
interpretations by various courts around the country.
The EPA rule also creates some unintended consequences when it comes
to Federal and State jurisdiction. That is why the Improving Coal
Combustion Residuals Regulation Act empowers States and allows them to
establish permit programs to meet or exceed regulatory requirements set
forth in the EPA's final rule.
It only makes sense that each State, with their unique topography and
geographic conditions, should be able to set the permitting
requirements most appropriate for their conditions in order to meet
these EPA standards. In fact, States already govern the disposal of
solid and hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act, or RCRA, and have done so since 1976.
It is important to point out that these regulatory reforms do not
change the minimum requirements under the EPA rule, which are designed
to protect human health and the environment. This legislation actually
codifies these standards and sets them as the baseline for State
permitting programs nationwide.
Mr. Speaker, I expect that some of my friends on the other side are
going to argue that this legislation, in some way, weakens standards.
Let me tell you what will result in weakened standards, allowing
different Federal judges from all across the country to decide how the
law should be interpreted and how standards should be set, despite the
fact that these judges have no real background in regulatory matters
regarding these sorts of hazardous wastes, these sorts of wastes at
all.
Instead of that flawed system, let's allow States to create their own
permitting system, which must comply with the EPA standard. By getting
frivolous civil lawsuits out of the way, estimates project that this
legislation will protect around 316,000 jobs. If my colleagues on the
other side think that
[[Page H5347]]
this is a waste of time, then I want them to tell that to these 316,000
families.
H.R. 1734 is a good bill that makes some very sensible reforms that
simplify the process for the safe management and disposal of coal ash
while providing a realistic enforcement mechanism for existing
environmental standards.
The second bill covered by this rule, the Safe and Accurate Food
Labeling Act, deals with agriculture. Now, agriculture is the top
industry in my home State of Alabama, with over 500,000 jobs. I have
heard from a number of farmers who support this bipartisan legislation.
H.R. 1599 will provide much needed clarity and uniformity in the
labeling of food products containing genetically engineered plants or
ingredients. This commonsense legislation is supported by almost 500
associations and farmers from Hawaii to Maine.
The current regulatory system is a patchwork of State and local
regulations, which create unnecessary costs among consumers and food
manufacturers without really helping to increase consumer awareness. In
fact, a study by Cornell University found that food prices could rise
for American families by as much as $500 a year if something isn't
changed.
This legislation would streamline the labeling process and create a
national, voluntary food labeling standard for products derived from
GMOs. By doing so, America's farmers and food manufacturers won't be
burdened with inconsistent and costly regulations.
This legislation isn't just good for producers and farmers; it
creates a uniform system driven by consumer demand. Under this bill,
consumers will be able to easily identify products and make their own
decisions about what products are best for them and their families.
Mr. Speaker, these bills are both about reducing the regulatory
burden and simplifying the regulatory process. From consumers to small-
business owners to rural electric cooperatives to family farmers,
people shouldn't have to spend precious time and money figuring out how
to comply with regulations.
Instead, here in Congress, we should be focused on getting government
out of the way and allowing the American people to actually do their
job, and that is what both of these bills do.
This is a fair rule, and I urge its support. The coal ash rule allows
for six amendments, all but one of them Democrat amendments. The food
labeling rule allows for four amendments, all of them Democrat
amendments, including one amendment that is a complete substitute for
the bill.
The Rules Committee has worked very hard to make a very fair
amendment process, and I believe that is exactly what this bill has
done.
I do urge support for this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Byrne) for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. I rise in very strong opposition to this rule, which
provides for consideration of H.R. 1599, the so-called Safe and
Accurate Food Labeling Act, and H.R. 1734, the Improving Coal
Combustion Residuals Regulation Act.
This week, we are back on the floor with our twenty-fourth grab bag
rule, one rule that governs debate for two completely unrelated
measures. Today, the Republican majority has chosen to group together a
bill that undermines an EPA rulemaking designed to protect public
health and our environment with a bill designed to make it harder for
consumers to know whether or not their food has been produced with
genetically engineered ingredients.
Utilizing this kind of rule for two completely separate bills leads
to disjointed debate. It limits the time that people have to be able to
talk about these issues, but it is a deliberate attempt by the
Republican majority to suppress debate. They don't want to bring
serious issues to the floor, and they certainly don't want serious
debate, and I regret very much that this has become a pattern.
I also oppose this rule because neither bill is an open rule. A lot
of Members, I am sure, have a lot of issues they want to raise on both
these bills, but they are not going to have that opportunity. The Rules
Committee denied a whole bunch of amendments on the GMO labeling bill
last night in committee.
I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for
open debate and an open process and reject this. Send a message to the
Republican leadership that enough is enough.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to H.R. 1734, the so-called Improving Coal
Combustion Residuals Regulation Act, this bill continues the
Republicans' antiscience, antienvironment, antipublic health fight.
There is not a week that goes by that we don't have a bill that seeks
to try to undermine regulation or rulemaking that is designed to help
protect the people of this country.
This bill undercuts EPA's new coal ash rule, putting many communities
at risk of exposure. Coal ash is highly toxic and needs to be properly
disposed of, and the devastating health effects from exposure to
neurotoxins in coal ash--like lead, mercury, and arsenic--are well
known.
This bill is just another Republican bill attempting to undermine
common sense, health, and safety protection from toxic chemicals. The
American people deserve much better. I am glad the White House has
issued a veto threat against the bill.
I include the Statement of Administration Policy in the Record.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 1734--Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act of 2015
(Rep. McKinley, R-WV, and 44 cosponsors; July 21, 2015)
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1734, because it
would undermine the protection of public health and the
environment provided by the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) December 2014 final rule addressing the risks posed
by mismanaged impoundments of coal ash and other coal
combustion residuals (CCR). The 2008 failure of a coal ash
impoundment in Kingston, Tennessee, and the 2014 coal ash
spill into the Dan River in Eden, North Carolina, serve as
stark reminders of the need for safe disposal and management
of coal ash.
EPA's rule articulates clear and consistent national
standards to protect public health and the environment,
prevent contamination of drinking water, and minimize the
risk of catastrophic failure at coal ash surface
impoundments. H.R. 1734 would, however, substantially weaken
these protections. For example, the bill would eliminate
restrictions on how close coal ash impoundments can be
located to drinking water sources. It also would undermine
EPA's requirement that unlined impoundments must close or be
retrofitted with protective liners if they are leaking and
contaminating drinking water. Further, the bill would delay
requirements in EPA's final CCR rule, including structural
integrity and closure requirements, for which tailored
extensions are already available through EPA's rule and
through approved Solid Waste Management Plans.
While the Administration supports appropriate State program
flexibility, H.R. 1734 would allow States to modify or waive
critical protective requirements found in EPA's final CCR
rule. Specifically, H.R. 1734 authorizes States to implement
permit programs that would not meet a national minimum
standard of protection and fails to provide EPA with an
opportunity to review and approve State permit programs prior
to implementation, departing from the long-standing precedent
of previously enacted Federal environmental statutes.
Because it would undercut important national protections
provided by EPA's 2014 CCR management and disposal rule, the
Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1734. If the President
were presented with H.R. 1734 as drafted, his senior advisors
would recommend that he veto the bill.
{time} 1245
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to spend most of my time
talking about the other bill, which I also strongly oppose, H.R. 1599,
which they have titled the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015,
one of the most misnamed pieces of legislation that I think we have
considered this year.
Mr. Speaker, I believe at the center of the debate about this bill is
Americans' fundamental right to know what is in the food they eat and
how it is grown. I believe people ought to have the right, plain and
simple.
This isn't a debate about the science behind GMOs. That is a separate
debate. Yet, whether you love GMOs or hate them, you ought to know if
the food that you are feeding your family is made from them.
Mr. Speaker, the Food and Drug Administration requires the labeling
of
[[Page H5348]]
thousands of ingredients, additives, and processes, many of which have
nothing to do with safety or nutrition.
For example, the FDA requires the mandatory labeling of juice when it
is from concentrate. Food labels are a simple and a reliable way to
tell people what is in their food and how it is made.
Americans have told us loud and clear that they want to know what is
in their food. Poll after poll indicates the widespread support for
labeling GMOs. A recent poll by the Mellman Group found that 91 percent
are in favor of labeling with 81 percent saying they strongly prefer
GMO labeling.
The support for labeling cuts across party identification, gender,
age--you name it. As well, three States--Vermont, Maine, and
Connecticut--have listened to their citizens and have passed laws
requiring that GMO foods be labeled, and dozens more are considering
similar initiatives, including my home State of Massachusetts.
I understand the concern with 50 different States passing 50
different State labeling laws. I get it. That is why I support
mandatory GMO labeling. We need a national standard that eliminates
confusion and puts the American people in charge.
Unfortunately, the bill before us only adds to the confusion. It
codifies the existing voluntary labeling system for GMO foods that
hasn't worked and that hasn't provided consumers the information that
they want.
It preempts States from responding to consumer demand and requiring
GMO labeling, and it invalidates State laws already in place. It
continues to allow foods that contain GMOs to be labeled as ``natural''
despite the fact that 60 percent of Americans believe that ``natural''
means GMO-free.
Mr. Speaker, I have a stack of letters here from a variety of
organizations that are opposed to H.R. 1599--the National Farmers
Union--representing family farmers and ranchers across the country.
They oppose this bill as well as the Consumers Union, the National
Black Farmers, and 125 CEOs and business leaders from Massachusetts and
across the country, including Whole Foods Market co-CEO Walter Robb;
Chipotle CEO and chairman Steve Ells; Clif Bar, Inc., CEO Kevin Cleary;
Newman's Own Organics cofounder Nell Newman; Panera Bread, Inc., CEO
Ron Shaich; Patagonia, Inc., CEO Rose Marcario; American Sustainable
Business Council CEO and cofounder David Levine; Sweetgreen, Inc.,
cofounder Nicolas Jammet; chef and founder of the Think Food Group,
Jose Andres; Craft Hospitality CEO and well-known chef, Tom Colicchio;
and many, many, many others.
The supporters of H.R. 1599 oppose mandatory GMO labeling, claiming
that GMO labeling would increase food prices for consumers. This is
just simply untrue. I want to read a section of a letter from the CEO
of Ben & Jerry's that proves the point:
``As an ice cream company that operates in more than 30 countries,
many of which require mandatory GMO labeling, we are not swayed by
arguments that mandatory labeling will be expensive. The truth is, we
regularly make changes, sometimes big, sometimes small, to our
packaging.''
He continues:
``Every year, we make changes to between 25% and 50% of our
packaging. Over the last 7 years, we've gone through three full line
redesigns. In other words, we have changed the packaging on every
single pint in our product line as a matter of normal business. I can
tell you unequivocally that changing labels does not require us to
raise the price of our products. Lots of things impact the cost a
consumer pays for a pint of Ben & Jerry's. Label changes are not one.''
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that adding a label to indicate that a
product contains GMOs ought to be pretty straightforward.
So, to the supporters of H.R. 1599, I would simply ask: What are you
afraid of? Why is giving the American people more information about
their food such a bad idea?
Perhaps supporters of keeping the American people in the dark believe
that, if consumers know that GMOs are in their food, they won't buy it.
I don't believe that to be the case. I myself consume GMO foods, as
does my family, and we will continue to do so even if there is a label,
but that is my choice.
H.R. 1599 really is a Washington-knows-best approach. I mean, this is
the epitome of a Washington-knows-best approach. It says, We don't care
what people want. We don't care what people think. We politicians in
Washington know best.
I am going to tell you something. That is why people hate Congress.
That is why people are frustrated with Congress. They don't think we
listen.
Let me suggest to my colleagues a radical idea--and brace yourselves
because this is a really, really radical idea--give the American people
what they want.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I was listening to the gentleman's remarks. If he believes that, by
codifying the EPA regulation that this bill is undermining the EPA, I
just don't follow that reasoning. That is what this bill does.
It takes the EPA regulation and it codifies it. It puts it into
statutory law. It sets it as a minimum, and it allows the State
regulators who are already regulating solid and hazardous waste to use
that as a minimum and to go above it.
Far from undermining the EPA's authority here, far from undermining
the effort to get a clean environment for the people of America, this
enhances it by putting it into law and allowing the States to go above
it if that is what they want to do.
What this bill really does that is new and is different from what the
EPA is trying to do is that it takes the enforcement of this away from
different Federal courts around the country, and it gives it to the
State regulators, who are already providing this regulation in other
common areas and who have been since 1976.
I am a lawyer and have practiced in Federal courts. We have many fine
Federal district judges around the country, but they are not experts in
this area. If you bring a lawsuit in their courts, they and their law
clerks will work very hard to make sure that they get it as close to
right as they can.
But in not having their experience and their expertise, we are going
to get a lot of differences. We are going to get a patchwork. Whereas,
if we go to the State regulators, who are doing it now, we are going to
get something that makes sense within each of these individual States,
given their different geographies and topographies and other things
that we should consider. This coal ash bill does not undermine the law.
It enhances the law.
Now, on the food labeling law, we had discussion about this in the
Rules Committee yesterday. I am a consumer. I go to the store. My wife
sends me to the store, and she says to get this, this, this, and this.
She does a lot of studying before I do that, but sometimes I have to
read the labels.
Now, imagine that I go to a store where I live in Alabama and that I
am an hour away from Mississippi and an hour away from Florida.
Somebody has got to put a product on store shelves up and down the gulf
coast, and they have got to comply with all three States' regulations
on what has got to be on the label.
I am going to pick up a can, and there are going to be all of these
different disclosure requirements, but they have been put on the same
can because they have got to make sure they can market it in all of
these States.
I have got to figure out what does all of that mean as opposed to
having one common, uniform disclosure. If somebody chooses not to
disclose--if a producer of a given food product chooses not to disclose
whether or not it contains GMOs--I am going to assume that there are.
If I have a problem with GMOs, I am not going to buy it.
Five percent of the consumers in America today won't buy GMOs, and
they are pretty educated consumers. What they are going to do is they
are going to go into the store and say, ``All right. Who has got GMO
labeling and who doesn't? If they don't, I am not buying it.''
If the producers of those foods want to sell something to those
customers, they had better start taking advantage of what is happening
through this common rule, this uniform rule, across the country to
market themselves.
Far from hurting the consumers, this helps the consumers. That is
what this
[[Page H5349]]
bill has tried so very hard to do, and I think they have done a good
job with it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Newhouse), a member of the Rules Committee and a farmer himself.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. I would like to thank my colleague from Alabama, a
member of the Rules Committee, as well as joining Mr. McGovern with
whom we share a Rules Committee assignment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule that we are considering as
well as the underlying legislation, both bills, but I would like to
specifically speak to H.R. 1599, which is, I believe, accurately
labeled the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. I think, also, I would
like to talk to the positive impacts that it will have on our Nation's
food supply.
Many of you may know that, prior to coming to Congress, I was the
director of the Washington State Department of Agriculture. Shortly
after my time at the WSDA, several groups in my home State of
Washington proposed a ballot initiative, I-522, which would have
required mandatory labeling of biotech food products or of those using
ingredients that had biotech ingredients, also referred to as GMOs.
Now, I opposed I-522 for a couple of reasons but mainly because of
the impact that we could see it would have on our farmers and on our
ranchers and on our grocers but, more importantly, on our consumers,
the families who are making food decisions in the grocery stores, who,
in the end, would pay higher food prices as a result of this mandatory
labeling law that was being considered.
In our State, we have the Washington Research Council, and it
conducted an independent study, showing that the mandatory food
labeling of biotech ingredients would cost the average family at
least--at a minimum--$450 a year in increased food costs. That is
assuming that Washington was the only jurisdiction to create such a
law.
Now, if other States and other cities--other localities--decided to
follow suit and pass their own laws, such as Seattle or New York or
Boston or San Francisco or Oregon, food producers would face an
incredible, unworkable patchwork of legal definitions of what a ``GMO''
is and how to label it.
I can only imagine a food producer having to print, say, 100
different labels for its products depending on where they were
destined, where they were to be sold, and the liability they would face
if, for instance, a box of food labeled for Phoenix ended up in Las
Vegas or in Los Angeles or in Salt Lake City.
Many producers are considering stopping or have stopped selling
products in the State of Vermont, which is the most recent State to
adopt mandatory labeling standards, because of this increased cost,
because of the uncertainty and the liability that separate
jurisdictions would create.
In my estimation and what the people of my State have said is that
what we need is a national voluntary label, much like organic, a label
which gives consumers who want to purchase non-GMO foods the freedom to
do so, but that will not impose higher costs on producers or consumers.
Mr. Speaker, critics of this bill, H.R. 1599, unfairly claim it will
limit the ability of consumers to know what they are purchasing; but
let me say that that just simply is not the case, that it is not true.
If you go into a grocery store and want to purchase an organic
product, that is something that you are easily able to do, and that is
exactly what this bill will do for GMO foods. It will create a similar
label.
So make no mistake. If buying non-GMO is important to any of you as a
consumer, then you will have every ability to do so when you walk into
a grocery store and make your purchase.
You will have the confidence of the United States Department of
Agriculture's system of making sure that those labels are consistent
from one State to the other; so you will know what you are buying by
what that label says.
Mr. Speaker, the Founders of our Nation gave Congress a tool in our
Constitution to regulate interstate commerce to prevent the types of
legal patchworks and market distortions that we are beginning to see on
this issue.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the rule, to support H.R.
1599, and protect the Nation's access to safe, affordable food.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the comments from my colleagues from Washington and
Alabama. Both serve on the Rules Committee with me, and I respect them;
but I do not think they were paying attention to my speech.
I am not arguing here for a patchwork of 50 different rules and
regulations with regard to labeling. What I am saying is that what my
friends are proposing here, which is voluntary labeling on non-GMO
products, should be replaced with mandatory GMO labeling across the
country.
That is what people want, and that is what this bill would deny. You
are not only preempting States and telling States that they have no
role in this debate and you are not only preempting the will of the
American people here, but you are setting a standard here so that
people will be kept in the dark.
{time} 1300
I want uniformity, but I want more information, and this idea that
somehow labeling will increase food prices is just baseless; it is
baseless. There are plenty of things that increase the prices that we
pay at the grocery store--transportation costs and ingredients costs,
those all add to the cost--but GMO labeling is not one of them. In
study after study, we have seen that a simple GMO disclaimer on food
packaging will not increase food prices.
I just read to you the letter from the CEO of Ben & Jerry's. Food
companies change their labels all the time to make new claims. All food
companies will soon have to change their labels to make important
changes to the nutrition fact panel.
Adding a few words on the back of the food package about genetic
engineering will not impact the cost of making food. That is just not a
real argument; that is just baseless. Let's focus on what this bill
really does. It basically keeps the American people in the dark about
what is in their food.
I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the
speakers who preceded me, and the gentleman from Massachusetts is
absolutely right. The simple solution is to adopt a uniform national
mandatory standard that would give that information on the label.
Eighty-eight percent of the American people who regularly are polled
say: We would like that information on the label.
It will not add cost any more than printing ``red dye no. 2'' on the
label adds cost to the label. It will add no cost. It would have a
uniform national standard. You wouldn't have to worry about a
proliferation of the States, and then you wouldn't have to contradict
yourselves as Republicans when, every day, you are down here screaming
about states' rights, and now, when States do something you don't like:
Oh, my God, states' rights, out of here.
It is not just the labeling. Yeah, there are three blue States that
have labeled, and you don't care if you preempt their laws--got that;
but there are a lot of red States and purple States and blue States
where the departments of agriculture have recognized the reality of GMO
and the potential pollution of conventional non-GMO and organic crops.
We had a little incident in Oregon where all our wheat export was
stopped because GMO-modified wheat was found in the middle of a very
large conventional farm. Until they could figure out how it got there
and how much pollution there might be or cross-contamination of
Oregon's huge wheat exports, they were all stopped because 64 countries
around the world require this labeling, and somehow, the U.S.
conglomerates who make food and export processed food are able to label
over there.
I have a Hershey's label from the EU. I will show it tomorrow. It's
beautiful. It's got an American flag on it, made in the USA, contains
GMOs. They can do it over there, but they can't do it here because it
would just drive the price up stratospherically. That seems odd.
[[Page H5350]]
In fact, this would help them. If we adopted a national standard
here--and the way my bill is written, it would be essentially the same
as that required in the European Union and 64 other countries--then
they could ship their food to all 50 States, the territories, and 64
countries around the world without having to make any changes. They
might save some money then if labels are so expensive.
But, no, we are going to have a meaningless, voluntary label. Even
worse, we are going to create a new label. We are going to say that
``natural'' means GMO. When you mate a flounder with a tomato plant--
which is what they do, just like hybridizing, flounders, tomato plants,
they get together all the time--then that is natural.
Or when you take a salmon and you introduce an eel gene--they mate,
cross-breed all the time--well, no, actually, they don't--and the
salmon grows twice as fast as normal salmon, then that is natural.
You won't be able to say ``contains GMOs'' if you can say ``natural''
and ``natural'' means contains GMOs, unless they want to voluntarily go
on and say: Well, under the new ``natural'' label, I can have GMOs, but
I am going to put it is natural, but it contains GMOs.
This has the prospect of causing tremendous chaos with a new, very
confusing label for the American consumers.
Back to the cross-contamination--again, this is not just a blue State
issue; it is a red State issue. We have huge export markets, and those
64 countries will not accept products that contain GMOs. If you strip
out State regulations, how they claim they have fixed the bill, and
they don't strip out all the State department of agriculture
regulations in some 35 States around the country, many of them very red
States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, they claim to have fixed it, but the
language is still a little bit ambiguous. Many people who have read
it--experts say no, actually, it looks like we are preempting State
department of agriculture on separation and buffer zones and other
things to protect conventional farmers, organic farmers from the GMOs.
I had a very simple amendment that would just say this does not
preempt any State department of agriculture which has adopted for the
purposes of redacting conventional crops, non-GMO, and organic crops
for reasonable buffer zones and other sorts of provisions to prevent
that cross-contamination. That is wiped out by this bill, in my opinion
and the opinion of many other experts. My amendment was not allowed.
I am thankful that I had one amendment allowed which will say, if you
are already labeling it in countries all around the world, you have got
to label it here. That is good, but preferably, we would have uniform
labeling of everything in the 50 States and internationally by just
requiring that you disclose that it contains GMOs.
There is another amendment that will be offered tomorrow which will
do away with this new ``natural'' standard, ``natural'' meaning
mandatorily under Federal law contains GMOs. ``Natural'' can contain
GMOs. I think that is pretty disingenuous, and I am not sure who
slipped that little beauty in there.
If you want to talk about confusing consumers, ``organic,''
``natural.'' Whoa, what is the difference between ``natural'' and
``organic''? Well, I like ``natural.'' ``Organic,'' that sounds kind of
complicated; I will go with ``natural.'' Oh, that contains GMOs. Well,
it doesn't say that. No, it doesn't. It says ``natural.'' ``Natural''
contains GMOs.
If the gentleman is really concerned about consumer confusion, you
should support that amendment tomorrow to do away with this new
disingenuous label.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to assure my friend from Massachusetts that the
gentleman from Washington and I are indeed paying attention to him, as
we do in the Committee on Rules. He is a very knowledgeable gentleman
and certainly makes very interesting points.
The problem is that, as I listened to you talk, what you were saying,
the gentleman says, I think quite eloquently, that we need a national
standard, and right now, we don't have a national standard. This bill
will provide a national standard.
If you want a national standard, the status quo doesn't get you
there. If you want a national standard, this bill gets you there. That
is why the bill has been offered. That is why we have this rule today,
and that is why it is so important that we have this debate and the
debate on the underlying rule, so we can make sure we are all straight
about what this bill does and does not do.
This bill does something that is not being done right now. It
provides a national standard for GMO. The gentleman, I think, would
like for it to be mandatory; the bill calls for it to be voluntary. We
can disagree about whether or not that is advisable, but we can't
disagree about the fact that there is no national standard now, and
this bill provides one.
I want to make sure the gentleman knows, we listened to him. He makes
very interesting points that are always educational to us, but we don't
agree with his line of thought here. This bill, in our judgment, gets
us where I think he is trying to take us to go.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say to the gentleman, I agree with
him that this bill that will be considered tomorrow that this rule will
make in order does create a national standard.
The problem is that it is a national standard that keeps consumers in
the dark about what is in their food. Many of us would prefer a
national standard that kind of shines some light on what is in people's
food so that consumers know what they are buying. That is what
consumers want.
I will go back to what I said in my opening statement. I know this is
a radical idea in this particular Congress, but we ought to try
something different. We ought to try giving the American people what
they want. On this issue, they want to know what is in their food. They
want to know whether their foods contain GMOs.
Again, this is not a debate about whether GMOs are good or bad. As I
said before, I eat GMOs; I consume GMOs; my family consumes GMOs. That
is not what this debate is about. This is about information,
transparency, and giving consumers what they want.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous
question, and if we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring
up H.R. 3064, a comprehensive 6-year surface transportation bill that
is partially paid for by restricting U.S. companies from using so-
called inversion to shirk their tax obligations.
I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the
Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on
the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Budget, to discuss this proposal.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I do just want to take a break from the
GMO debate to talk about a huge problem confronting our country, and
that is the infrastructure that is in disrepair, from roads to bridges
to transit ways around this country.
The American people know it, and they are backed up in what they can
see in front of them by a report from the American Society of Civil
Engineers. They are the nonpartisan pros; they are the experts.
They have looked at the state of American infrastructure and given us
a grade of a D-plus--D-plus. Nobody should be happy with a D-plus. The
sad thing is that this Congress should get an F grade for failing to
respond to the bad grade with respect to our failing infrastructure.
In the face of this big problem, what did the House do? Well, we are
about to run out of money in 8 days. We are about to see the end of the
authorization in 8 days; so the House of Representatives, instead of
coming up with
[[Page H5351]]
a long-term plan to address this issue, which is what we should do,
came up with another kick-the-can-down-the-road Band-Aid approach. They
said, we are going to provide an extension of the inadequate funding
for just 5 more months, just to December of this year.
Now, we are a great country, and I think everybody knows that if you
are planning to make major investments in infrastructure, whether it is
our roads or our bridges or transit ways, you need a little more
certainty and stability than that.
Certainly, the private sector couldn't plan on 5-month intervals, and
we are asking these companies and these workers and these States to
come up with long-term plans for our States and for our country on
infrastructure, but we are only going to give them 5 months of
certainty going forward. We think that is a bad idea. Guess what.
Senate Republicans also think that is a bad idea. They came up with a
6-year plan.
Now, what we are providing this House today is the opportunity on the
very next vote to vote for the opportunity to vote on a robust 6-year
transportation infrastructure plan that is fully funded for the first 2
years.
How do we pay for that 2-year installment? We pay for it, Mr.
Speaker, by getting rid of this egregious tax loophole that many
multinational corporations are using to escape their responsibilities
to the American taxpayer.
Here is how it works. You have an American company. Their
headquarters are here; their people are here; everything they do is
here. Then they go and they purchase a small company, a small foreign
company, and they move their mailing address overseas to that small
company, and then that American company benefits from the educational
system we have here in the United States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, they purchase a small foreign company,
and then they move their mailing address overseas to that small
company. They then say to the American taxpayer: Guess what. We don't
have to pay any more taxes in the United States. We don't have to pay
taxes for the infrastructure that we have that does support us. We
don't have to pay for the education system that supports us. We want a
free ride.
Now, we need to close down this tax break. More and more companies
every day are taking advantage of it.
{time} 1315
If you close that loophole, you generate $40 billion. And you use
that money that otherwise would go to the bottom line of these
corporations that are trying to escape their responsibility to the
American people and you invest it in infrastructure right here at home.
You help modernize your infrastructure, and you put more people to
work.
We have introduced a piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, to do that.
The bill is H.R. 3064. And if we defeat the previous question, we as a
House will have an opportunity to vote on a 6-year, robust
transportation plan that is funded for 2 years by closing this
egregious tax loophole that is being exploited by corporations.
Let's defeat the previous question. Let's do the right thing for
American workers and American infrastructure.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the points of the gentleman from Maryland.
I, too, would like to see a 6-year highway bill. If you come to my
district and see Interstate 10 going through Mobile at rush hour, on a
holiday weekend, or on a summer weekend, you will see cars backed up
just about every direction. We need another I-10 bridge across the
Mobile River. We can't do that with a short-term highway bill.
So I strongly support what you are trying to accomplish--maybe not
exactly how you are trying to get there, but I certainly support the
concept there.
Here is the problem, though. Your idea, whatever it is, hasn't been
vetted through committee. You are just going to put it up here in place
of whatever we have got, and there really won't be an adequate
opportunity for the Members of this House to understand all the
details, and the details are going to matter.
Also, I was listening to the gentleman from Massachusetts in his
initial statement talk about how inappropriate it is that we put two
different bills on two different topics under one rule, and now we are
going to interject transportation. Well, if agriculture and energy are
confusing, if we add transportation, it is going to be further
confusing.
So as much as I appreciate the idea that the gentleman from Maryland
has--perhaps not the specifics, but the idea--this is not the
appropriate place, and this is certainly not the appropriate rule for
us to be discussing it.
When the time comes to be appropriate, I will actually move the
previous question, but I will also ask all of my colleagues to support
the previous question when I do so. I believe that is the appropriate
way for this House to handle a matter of this magnitude, and it is a
matter of great magnitude.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before I close, I will insert in the Record a letter from the
National Farmers Union supporting mandatory GMO labeling and opposed to
H.R. 1599; a letter from Dr. John W. Boyd, Jr., the Founder and
President of the National Black Farmers Association; a letter from Ben
Burkett, the Executive Director of the National Family Farm Coalition,
opposed to H.R. 1599; a letter from the Consumers Union opposed to H.R.
1599; a letter from Jostein Solheim, the CEO of Ben & Jerry's, opposed
to the underlying bill; a letter from Tom Colicchio on behalf of the
Food Policy Action group, opposed to H.R. 1599; a letter from Scott
Faber, Senior Vice President for Governmental Affairs at EWG, opposed
to H.R. 1599; a letter from the Consumer Federation of America opposed
to H.R. 1599 and in support of mandatory GMO labeling; a letter from
the CEO of National Co+op Grocers, opposed to the bill; and a letter
from a group called Just Label It, signed by a whole bunch of people
opposed to the bill and for mandatory GMO labeling.
[From the National Farmers Union, July 21, 2015]
NFU Reiterates Support for Mandatory GMO Labeling, Opposes Pompeo Bill
but Notes Progress
Washington.--In light of the U.S. House of Representatives'
consideration of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act
(H.R. 1599), National Farmers Union (NFU) President Roger
Johnson again highlighted NFU policy on Genetically Modified
Organism (GMO) labeling. The policy supports conspicuous,
mandatory, uniform and federal labeling for food products
throughout the processing chain to include all ingredients,
additives and processes, including genetically altered or
engineered food products.
``NFU appreciates efforts by Representatives Pompeo, R-
Kansas, and Davis, R-Illinois, to reduce consumer confusion
and standardize a GMO label;'' said Johnson. ``The bill
passed out of committee makes significant improvements over
previous versions of this bill. Absent a mandatory labeling
framework, however, NFU cannot support this bill.''
Johnson noted that the bill has changed several times from
the one introduced during the last Congress. Improvements
include additional authority for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), a labeling framework that if utilized
could reduce consumer confusion, greater emphasis on the Food
and Drug Administration's role in safety reviews, and a GMO
label that works in conjunction with USDA's organic seal
instead of counter to it.
``Consumers increasingly want to know more information
about their food, and producers want to share that
information with them,'' said Johnson. ``It is time to find
common ground that includes some form of mandatory disclosure
for the benefit of all aspects of the value chain, but this
bill is not that common ground.''
____
July 15, 2015.
Hon. John Boehner,
Office of the Speaker of the House.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Office of the Democratic Leader.
Re ``Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act,'' H.R. 1599
Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi: The National Black
Farmers Association (NBFA), a non-profit organization
representing African American farmers and their families with
tens of thousands of members nationwide, urge you to oppose
the ``Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act'' (also known as
the ``Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act'').
NBFA strongly supports mandatory labeling of genetically
engineered foods (commonly called ``GMOs''). But in spite of
its name, the ``Safe and Accurate Food Labeling
[[Page H5352]]
Act'' undermines farmworker safety and labeling by:
Preempting states from regulating GMO crops to protect
farmworker health, public health, and the environment;
Codifying the current, broken voluntary labeling system;
Allowing ``natural'' foods to contain GMO ingredients and
preempt state efforts to end misleading ``natural'' claims;
and
Virtually eliminating FDA's ability to craft a national GMO
labeling system.
While NBFA does not object to farmers growing GMO crops per
se, we are aware of the increased use of toxic weed killers
associated with herbicide-tolerant GMO crops. As farmers,
NBFA members know firsthand that consumers are demanding more
information about the food they feed their families--not
less.
NBFA stands with the vast majority of Americans who are in
favor of labeling GMOs. Because the ``Safe and Accurate Food
Labeling Act'' does not require GMO labels, we urge you to
oppose the bill.
Sincerely,
Dr. John W. Boyd, Jr.,
Founder and President,
National Black Farmers Association.
____
National Family Farm Coalition,
Washington, DC, July 21, 2015.
Dear Representative, On behalf of the family farmers,
ranchers and fishermen we represent, the National Family Farm
Coalition (NFFC) urges you to oppose H.R. 1599, the Safe and
Accurate Food Labeling Act. H.R. 1599 proponents claim it
would establish a national standard for labeling products
containing GMOs. In reality, this bill fails to provide more
accurate labeling and significantly curtails the ability of
state, local and municipal governments to protect their
constituents.
H.R. 1599 would establish a voluntary national standard
that companies could use to label their products as GMO-free,
but FDA guidelines have provided this option for companies
since 2001. An overwhelming 88 percent of consumers favor
required labeling of food products containing GMOs in a
Mellman Group study, but H.R. 1599's voluntary program would
also allow companies to label products containing GMOs as
`natural', which is vague and misleading to consumers.
H.R. 1599 would invalidate dozens of state and local laws
across the nation. The GMO labeling laws that citizens and
legislators worked for diligently in Vermont, Maine and
Connecticut would be preempted. Furthermore, H.R. 1599 would
block laws creating buffer zones around schools and hospitals
to protect children and patients from pesticide exposure, as
in Hawaii.
For non-GMO farmers, H.R. 1599 would be disastrous as it
would preempt laws designed to protect them from GMO
contamination of their fields. Farmers have already suffered
through the contamination of wheat, rice and other crops,
having lost export dollars to Asian markets that demand non-
GMO varieties. Without strong regulations and oversight,
farmers' crops and livelihoods are at risk in ways that they,
their families and their communities cannot afford.
Striking down the laws around food and food production that
a broad array of citizens and officials have worked to enact
undermines the democratic processes guaranteed by our
constitution. The NFFC asks you to oppose H.R. 1599, thereby
preserving the rights of people to know what they are growing
and consuming.
Sincerely,
Ben Burkett,
NFFC Executive Board President.
____
ConsumersUnion',
Washington, DC, July 21, 2015.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: Consumers Union, the policy and
advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, strongly urges you to vote
no on H.R. 1599, introduced by Representative Pompeo, which
we understand the House will consider this week. The bill
would very broadly preempt state laws relating to genetically
engineered (GE) food and crops, and ban any level of
government from requiring GE food to be labeled as such.
Consumers Union supports mandatory labeling of GE food, and
opposes H.R. 1599, for several reasons. First, consumers want
labeling. Polls, including our own, show that more than 90%
of consumers want GE food to be labeled accordingly. Yet H.R.
1599 would codify current prevailing federal policy, in which
any labeling of GE food must be the voluntary choice of the
food producer--a policy which has only generated confusion.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) adopted this policy 15
years ago, and today there is not a single food product on
the market that carries a label indicating it contains GE
ingredients.
Second, there are numerous precedents for mandatory
labeling. FDA already requires labeling of food if it is
homogenized, frozen, or made from concentrate. Some 64
countries, including most of our major trading partners,
require labeling of GE food.
Third, states have begun to act on the clear requests of
their citizens for information on whether the food they buy
contains GE ingredients. Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut have
passed legislation requiring labeling of food from GE plants.
Other states, including New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts, and Illinois, have considered bills. Whether
enacted by state legislatures or approved by voters, the
ability of states to act democratically to carry out the
wishes of their citizens on GE food labeling should not be
impeded by Congress.
Fourth, H.R. 1599 would permit the use of ``natural''
claims on the labels of GE food until FDA finalizes a rule
defining ``natural'' and decides whether it will continue to
allow this practice. The bill would also prohibit states from
taking their own steps to regulate the use of these claims.
Polling by Consumer Reports has found that more than 60% of
consumers are misled, in that they already believe a
``natural'' label on a product means it does not contain
genetically modified ingredients. Fully 85% of consumers
think that a ``natural'' label on packaged or processed foods
should mean no genetically modified ingredients were used.
Yet Consumer Reports testing last year identified five food
products labeled ``natural'' that actually did contain such
ingredients. By allowing foods labeled as ``natural'' to
contain GE ingredients, H.R 1599 would authorize a deceptive
practice that is highly inconsistent with consumer
expectations.
Fifth, mandatory GE food labeling would not be expensive.
An analysis commissioned by Consumers Union and conducted by
an independent economic research firm found from a review of
published research that the median cost of requiring GE food
labeling is $2.30 per person annually--less than a penny a
day for each consumer. This figure takes into account one-
time implementation expenses, so the actual cost per person
could be even lower.
Finally, H.R. 1599 goes beyond the question of labeling to
explicitly prohibit state or local requirements related to
the use of GE plants for food in interstate commerce.
Restrictions on growing such crops in California, Oregon,
Washington, and Hawaii would likely be severely restricted or
invalidated. These measures were adopted for a variety of
reasons, including to prevent the contamination of specialty
crops destined for export, protect against invasive species,
and limit the use of toxic pesticides, such as glyphosate,
which many GE crops have been engineered to tolerate and
which was recently classified by the World Health
Organization's cancer research arm as probably carcinogenic
to humans.
We therefore strongly urge you to vote no on H.R. 1599,
which is contrary to what consumers want, and which would
profoundly interfere with the ability of state and local
governments to respond to the needs of their citizens.
Sincerely,
Jean Halloran,
Director, Food Policy Initiatives, Consumers Union.
Urvashi Rangan,
Director, Consumer Safety and Sustainability, Consumer
Reports.
____
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: I write on behalf of Ben & Jerry's to
urge you to oppose H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food
Labeling Act of 2015, otherwise known as the DARK Act.
As you know, national public opinion polling shows that
more than 90% of Americans want to know whether the products
they purchase contain genetically engineered ingredients
(GMOs). Just like labels that require disclosure of farm-
raised salmon or orange juice from concentrate, mandatory
labeling of GMO food will provide consumers the information
they need to make choices for themselves and their families.
Only mandatory GMO labeling will ensure that American
consumers have the same right to know what's in the food as
citizens in 64 other countries around the world, including
many where Ben & Jerry's operates. H.R. 1599, with its
voluntary framework for labeling products without GMOs, will
only enhance confusion in the marketplace.
As a Vermont-based company, we are particularly troubled
that H.R. 1599 would preempt Vermont's Act 120, which
beginning in July of 2016, will require labeling of food
products with GMO ingredients sold in Vermont. As a food
company doing business in all 50 states, we'd prefer a
national standard for mandatory GMO labeling, but absent
that, we support states like Vermont passing legislation that
ensures transparency and consumers' right to know.
As an ice cream company that operates in more than 30
countries, many of which require mandatory GMO labeling, we
are not swayed by arguments that mandatory labeling will be
expensive. The truth is, we regularly make changes, sometimes
big, sometimes small to our packaging. Every year, we make
changes to between 25% and 50% of our packaging. Over the
last 7 years, we've gone through three full line redesigns.
In other words, we have changed the packaging on every single
pint in our product line as a matter of normal business. I
can tell you unequivocally that changing labels does not
require us raise the price of our products. Lots of things
impact the cost a consumer pays for a pint of Ben & Jerry's.
Label changes are not one.
I'd be more than happy to discuss this issue and how it
would impact a large international food company like ours in
more detail with you or your staff. I urge you to stand with
the more than 90% of Americans
[[Page H5353]]
that support transparency in our food system by opposing H.R.
1599.
All the best,
Jostein Solheim,
CEO, Ben & Jerry's.
____
Food Policy Action,
Washington, DC, July 16, 2015.
Dear Representative: I urge you to oppose H.R. 1599,
legislation designed to block state and federal GMO labeling
laws and to weaken regulation of GMO crops.
As a chef, I want to know what I am feeding my customers.
And, my customers want to know what's in their food and how
it's grown.
So, I am shocked that some legislators in Washington are
trying to deny consumers this basic right.
Next week, legislators in the U.S. House of Representatives
will consider H.R. 1599, legislation that would block states
from requiring GMO labels and that would make it virtually
impossible for FDA to craft a national GMO labeling system.
But that's not all. H.R. 1599 would also block states from
regulating GMO crops to protect farmers and public health.
Nine out of ten consumers tell us they want the right to
know whether their food contains GMOs--just like consumers in
64 other nations. But, H.R. 1599 would deny them this right.
Congress should be leading efforts to give consumers more
information about what's in their food and how it's grown,
not less.
I urge you to oppose H.R. 1599.
Sincerely,
Tom Colicchio.
____
EWG,
Washington, DC, July 20, 2015.
Dear Representative: EWG strongly opposes H.R. 1599, the
so-called ``Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015.'' We
urge you to vote NO.
Consumers have the right to know what is in their food and
how it is grown. H.R. 1599 would deny consumers this basic
right by preempting state GMO labeling laws, virtually
eliminating the ability of the Food and Drug Administration
to craft a national mandatory GMO labeling system, by
enshrining a voluntary GMO labeling system that has failed
consumers, and by allowing ``natural'' claims on GMO foods.
Nine out of ten consumers want the right to know whether
their food has been produced with genetically modified food
ingredients--just like consumers in 64 other nations. GMO
labeling has not increased food prices in other nations, and
studies show that a modest GMO disclosure on the back of food
packages will have no impact on food prices or food security
needs.
In addition, H.R. 1599 would preempt state and local GMO
crop regulations designed to protect farmers from economic
harms caused by GMO crops. More than 40 states and counties
have adopted rules designed to protect farmers and rural
residents from the impacts of GMO crops.
Consumers should have the right to know what it's their
food and how it's grown. We urge you to vote NO on H.R. 1599.
Sincerely,
Scott Faber,
Senior Vice President for
Government Affairs, EWG.
____
Consumer Federation of America,
Washington, DC, July 20, 2015.
Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of Consumer Federation
of America (CFA), I urge you to vote in opposition to the
Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 (H.R. 1599) when
it comes up for a full floor vote. CFA is an association of
250 nonprofit consumer organizations across the country that
was established in 1968 to advance the consumer interest
through research, advocacy and education.
Contrary to its name, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling
Act is not an appropriate solution to labeling genetically
modified organisms (GMOs). Instead, the Act would codify the
current voluntary system which has not provided consumers the
information they want to know. It would pre-empt state GMO
labeling laws passed to provide their constituents with
accurate information about their food. The Act would also
create consumer confusion in the marketplace by allowing food
companies to continue making ``natural'' claims on products
containing GMO foods.
More and more, American consumers want information about
the food they feed to their families. American consumers have
a right to know what is in their food, just like consumers in
64 countries who already have the right to know whether their
food contains GMOs. Voluntary labeling, as proposed in the
Act, is not effective because it does not provide consistent
information to consumers. Instead, consumers get information
only from some companies who choose to provide it and not
from other companies. A better solution is the GE Food Right
to Know Act introduced by Senator Boxer and Representative
DeFazio, which would require GMO foods to be labeled,
providing consumers with the consistent information they
deserve.
I urge you to oppose the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling
Act of 2015 (H.R. 1599) when it comes up for a full floor
vote.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Chris Waldrop.
____
National Co+op Grocers,
Iowa City, IA, July 17, 2015.
Dear Representative: National Co+op Grocers (NCG) supports
consumers' right to information, including sufficient product
labeling, so that people can make their own informed
purchasing decisions. We strongly oppose The Safe and
Accurate Food Labeling Act (H.R. 1599) because it:
1. Lacks transparency. H.R. 1599 merely codifies the status
quo of voluntary labeling. In the 14 years since the FDA has
allowed companies to voluntarily label foods that have been
produced using genetic engineering, no single company has
labeled them as such. Only mandatory labeling fulfills
consumer demand for transparency regarding GMOs.
2. Undermines public will. Multiple surveys have shown that
the majority of Americans, regardless of age, income,
education, or party affiliation, want GMO foods to be
labeled. H.R. 1599 nullifies GMO labeling laws that are
already on the books in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine.
Furthermore, the bill preempts states by blocking any future
state legislation or ballot initiatives that would require
GMO labeling. While NCG favors a national solution, we
support states' efforts in the absence of federally regulated
mandatory labeling.
3. Heightens consumer confusion. Newly inserted language
would allow food companies to continue to make ``natural''
claims on foods produced using genetic engineering and would
also block state efforts to protect consumers from misleading
``natural'' claims. Because many consumers believe that
``natural'' foods are produced without genetically engineered
ingredients, H.R. 1599 would only perpetuate consumer
confusion in the marketplace.
NCG is a business services cooperative for retail food co-
ops located throughout the United States. We represent 143
food co-ops operating over 195 stores in 38 states with
combined annual sales of over $1.7 billion and over 1.3
million consumer-owners. We urge Congress to reject H.R.
1599.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this issue.
Sincerely,
Robynn Shrader,
National Co+op Grocers CEO.
____
Just Label It!,
Washington, DC, July 20, 2015.
Dear Representative: We urge you to oppose H.R. 1599, which
would deny Americans the right to know whether their food
contains genetically modified food ingredients.
National polls show that nine out of ten Americans want the
right know if their food contains GMOs. Regardless of age,
income, education level or even party affiliation, Americans
want the right to know what is in their food and how it was
produced--the same right held by citizens in 64 other
nations.
As business leaders, we hope that you will reject H.R. 1599
and instead require food companies to label products that
contain GMOs.
If enacted, H.R. 1599 would limit the FDA's ability to
create a national GMO labeling system, weaken our broken
voluntary labeling system, and block state initiatives to
give citizens this basic information about their food.
Congress has long recognized that Americans should be given
basic information about their food and trusted to make the
right choices for their families.
We urge you to honor this longstanding tradition and to
reject H.R. 1599.
Sincerely,
Andrew Abraham, Founder and CEO, Orgain Inc., CA; Jose
Andres, Chef and Founder, Think Food Group, DC; Summer
Auerbach, Second Generation Owner, Rainbow Blossom Natural
Food Markets, KY; Dan Barber, Chef/Co-Owner, Blue Hill at
Stone Barns, NY; Brandon Barnholt, President and CEO, KeHE
Distributors LLC, IL; Fedele Bauccio, CEO, Bon Appetit
Management, CA; Rick Bayless, Chef/Owner, Frontera Grill, IL;
Andy and Rachel Berliner, Co-Founders, Amy's Kitchen, CA;
Trudy Bialic, Director, Public Affairs, PCC Natural Markets,
WA; Mitch Blumenthal, Founder, Global Organic Specialty
Source Inc, FL.
Marco Borges, CEO, 22 Days Nutrition, FL; Doug Brent, CEO,
Made in Nature LLC, CO; Clifford Brett Jr., CEO/Owner,
Kimberton Whole Foods, PA; Peter and Janie Brodhead, Owners,
Brighter Day Natural Foods Market, GA; David Bronner, CEO,
Dr. Bronner's Inc., CA; Michael Branner, Founder and
Chairman, UNREAL Inc., MA; Jonas Buehl, Owner, The Crunchy
Grocer, CO; Jon Cadoux, Founder/CEO, Peak Organic Brewing
Company, ME; Yvonne Chamberlain, Owner, The Market @ Tree of
Life Center, TN; Kevin Cleary, CEO, Clif Bar & Company, CA.
Morty Cohen, CEO, Falcon Trading Company, CA; Tom
Colicchio, CEO, Craft Hospitality, NY; Kerry Collins, CEO,
Applegate Inc., NJ; Kit Crawford, Co-Owner, Clif Bar &
Company, CA; Nicole Dawes, President, COO, Late July
Organics, MA; Joel Dee, President, Edward & Sons Trading
Company, CA; Valerie Deptula, President, The Good Earth
Natural Foods Co., MD; Steve Diakowsky, President and CEO,
Taste of Nature Foods Inc., CA; Norman Dill, Owner/President,
Rebecca's Natural Food, VA; Adnan Durrani, CEO, Saffron Road
Inc., CT.
Steve Ells, Chairman and CEO, Chipotle, CO; Shane Emmett,
CEO, Health Warrior, VA; Gary Erickson, Co-Owner and Founder,
Clif Bar & Company, CA; Susie Farbin, Co-Owner, Mama Jean's
Natural Market, MO;
[[Page H5354]]
Jerry Farrell, Owner/President, Rising Tide Natural Market,
NY; Mark Fergusson, Chief Executive Officer, Down to Earth
Organic & Natural, HI; Mike Ferry, President, Horizon
Organic, CO; John Foraker, CEO, Annie's Inc., CA; Leonard
Freeke, CEO and Founder, The Veri Soda Company, NY; Michael
Funk, Co-Founder and Chairman, United Natural Foods Inc., RI.
Robert Gerner, President, The Natural Grocery Company, CA;
Diane Gibb-Lahodny, Owner, Campbell's Nutrition, IA; Neal
Gottlieb, CEO, Three Twins Ice Cream, CA; Gail Graham,
General Manager, Mississippi Market Natural Foods Coop, MN;
Jerry Greenfield, Co-Founder, Ben & Jerry's Inc., VT; Hitesh
Hajarnavis, Founder, esSVee, Life, NJ; Kristi Harwell, Owner/
CEO, New Leaf Community Market, CA; Ben Henderson, Owner,
Bare Essentials Natural Market, NC; Belinda Higuera, CEO,
Berryvale Grocery, CA; Gary Hirshberg, Chairman, Stonyfield
Farm Inc., NH; Roland Hoch, Vice President, Global Organics
Ltd., MA.
Janie Hoffman, CEO and Founder, Mamma Chia, CA; Stephanie
Hong, CEO, Real Food Company, CA; Steve Hughes, Founder and
CEO, Boulder Brands Inc., CO; Cheryl Hughes, Owner, The Whole
Wheatery, CA; Nicolas Jammet, Co-Founder, Sweetgreen Inc.,
DC; Mindee Jeffery, Product & Standards Analyst, Good Earth
Natural Foods, CA; Blair Kellison, CEO, Traditional
Medicinals, CA; Rosanne Kiely, Owner, West Village Market &
Deli, NC; Ashley Koff, CEO, Ashley Koff RD LLC, DC; Jesse
LaFlamme, CEO, Pete and Gerry's Organic Eggs, NH.
Donna Layburn, President, Alameda Natural Grocery, CA;
Lanis LeBaron, Owner, Lupines Natural Foods, CA; David
Levine, Co-Founder and CEO, American Sustainable Business
Council, DC; Grant Lundberg, CEO, Lundberg Family Farms Inc.,
CA; Susan and Maury Lyon, Owners, Cornucopia Natural Food &
Fine Cheese, IL; Rose Marcario, CEO, Patagonia Inc., CA; Matt
McLean, Founder and CEO, Uncle Matt's Organic, FL; Danny
Meyer, CEO, Union Square Hospitality Group, NY; Paku Misra,
Owner/CEO, Sunflower Natural Foods Market, NY; Sam Mogannam,
Founder and President, Bi-Rite Market, CA.
Marie Montemurro, Owner, Lovey's Natural Foods and Cafe,
NC; Rod Moyer, Co-Founder, Beverage Innovations Inc., FL;
Dean Nelson, President, Dean's Natural Food Markets, NJ; Nell
Newman, Co-Founder, Newman's Own Organics, CT; Ted Niehaus,
Owner/CEO, Naturally Organic, IL; Michel Nischan, President/
CEO, Wholesome Wave, CT; Bu Nygrens, Co-Founder and Director
of Purchasing, Veritable Vegetable, CA; Doug Obenhaus,
Grocery Manager, Royal River Natural Foods, ME; Gwyneth
Paltrow, Founder and CCO, goop.com, CA; Nick Pascoe, Owner/
President Bear Foods Natural Market & Cafe-Cr eperie, WA;
John Pittari Jr., President, Proprietor, New Morning Market,
CT.
Mark Polson, Owner/CEO, Polson's Natural Foods, IL; Michael
Potter, Chairman and President, Eden Foods, MI; Angela
Reusing, Chef-Owner, Lantern, NC; Douglas Riboud, Co-Founder
and Co-CEO, Harmless Harvest, CA; Evan Richards, Founder,
Rejuvenative Foods, CA; Walter Robb, Co-CEO, Whole Foods
Market, TX; Maria Rodale, CEO, Rodale Press, PA; Edouard
Rollet, Co-Founder, Alter Eco Foods, CA; Layne Rolston,
Communications Director, Good Food Store, MT.
Scott Roseman, Founder and CEO, New Leaf Community Markets,
CA; Bob Scaman, President, Goodness Greeness, IL; Mark
Schoninger, Owner, Bath Natural Market ME; Erin Schrode, Co-
Founder and Spokeswoman, Turning Green, CA; Mathieu Senard,
Co-Founder, Alter Eco Foods, CA; Ron Shaich, CEO, Panera
Bread Inc., MA; Alan Shepherd, Owner, Rocket Market, WA;
Corinne Shindelar, CEO, Independent Natural Food Retailers
Association, MN; Ron Sjoquist, General Manager, Good Harvest
Market, WI.
Robynn Shrader, CEO, National Co+op Grocers, IA; Craig
Sieben, President, Sieben Energy Associates, IL; George
Siemon, CEO, Organic Valley, WI; Irwin D. Simon, Founder,
Chairman, President and CEO, The Hain Celestial Group Inc.,
NY; Jim Slama, President Family Farmed, IL; Joel Solomon,
CEO, Joel Solomon Company, TN; Jimbo Someck, President,
Jimbo's Naturally, CA; Tom Spier, CEO, Boulder Food Group,
CO; Steve Spinner, CEO, United Natural Foods Inc., RI; Mark
Squire, President and CEO, Good Earth Natural Foods, CA; Adam
and Debra Stark, Owners, Debra's Natural Gourmet, MA; Arran
Stephens, Co-Founder and CEO, Nature's Path Foods, WA.
Bobby Sullivan, General Manager, French Broad Food Co-op,
NC; Kelly Swette, CEO, Sweet Earth Natural Foods, CA; Sam
Talbot, Founding Executive Chef, The Surf Lodge, NY; Shazi
Visram, Founder/CEO, Happy Family Brands, NY; Dennis Wagner,
President, Rainbow Grocery Cooperative Inc., CA; Laughing
Water, Owner, Real Food Market & Deli, MT; Bill Weiland,
President and CEO, Presence Marketing, IL; Cindy Weinfurter,
Owner, The Free Market, WI; Tim Westwell, CEO, Pukka Herbs
Inc., DE; Bill Whyte, CEO and Founder, W.S. Badger Company
Inc., NH; Stephen Williamson, CEO, Forager Project CA; John
Wood II, Owner, The Green Grocer, RI; Alex Young, Zingerman's
Roadhouse, MI.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First of all, I oppose the rule because it is not an open rule. A
number of amendments were not made in order. Again, it is kind of a
hodgepodge, grab-bag rule where we are dealing with multiple issues
that are not related. We have to end this practice. Voting against this
rule is one way to demonstrate your dissatisfaction.
But let me close talking about H.R. 1599 and basically urge my
colleagues to be opposed to this bill. The fact of the matter is, as a
parent--and I think I speak for all parents--I think we want to know
what is in the food that we are feeding our family. That is why I
support mandatory GMO labeling. Not 50 different labels of 50 different
States, but mandatory, standardized GMO labeling.
Americans want to know what is in their food. American consumers want
the same right as consumers in 64 other countries who already have the
right to know whether their food contains GMOs. Why we should not have
that same right is beyond me, but I guess Washington knows best.
Support for GMO labeling crosses demographic boundaries. Polls show
more than 90 percent of Americans want the right to know, regardless of
age, income, education, or party affiliation. Millions of Americans
have taken action. More than 1.4 million Americans have joined a
petition to FDA demanding the right to know what is in their food.
H.R. 1599, which has been dubbed the ``Dark Act,'' will basically
block State GMO labeling laws. This will preempt GMO labeling laws that
have already been passed in Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut, and
pending in 17 other State legislatures.
This bill also will allow the bogus natural claims to continue. It
allows food companies to continue to make natural claims on GMO foods
and block the State efforts to protect consumers from this misleading
natural claim. As I pointed out, when consumers see a product that says
``natural,'' they think it means no GMOs.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard my colleagues say that GMOs are safe and
why is this labeling necessary. This debate is not about the safety of
GMOs. As I mentioned before and I will mention again, I consume GMOs,
my family does. This is about consumers' right to know what is in the
food they put on their tables. We ought to give them that right.
This debate isn't about what the label should say. We can work on the
label. We aren't proposing a skull and crossbones on the packaging. It
is not a warning to consumers. It is a label simply disclosing the
presence of GMOs. Consumers are free to use this information as they
wish, but those who want to know should be able to know.
We had a fight about mandatory uniform nutrition labels in the 1980s,
and I think there is no doubt consumers are better off for it. People
are better served by knowing the nutrition information in their foods.
Why do my friends want to keep Americans in the dark? I would just
say people who are listening to this debate ought to call their
Representatives and tell them that they want more information, not
less. They want to be more informed about what they are purchasing for
their families.
This shouldn't be a controversial idea. This shouldn't be a radical
idea. Let's give the people what they want. Let's do that for a change.
Maybe our approval ratings will go up.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' interest in this very
important topic.
We said it several times. I am going to say it again. What this bill
does is provides a national label where there is no label now at the
national level; and we believe so strongly in that, that we put forward
this bill. Our side put forward this bill to give us a national label
because there is none now. There is zero, and you would be, as a
consumer, totally depending upon your local government, your State
government, coming up with it. You may find that your government at the
local level has one thing, your State government
[[Page H5355]]
at the State level has another, a community down the road has a
different one. The idea behind the uniformity is to give consumers a
uniform way of understanding what this information is.
I do wonder, by the way, what some people at home may be thinking
when they hear all this talk about GMOs. They may be running to the
refrigerator and saying, What is this GMO stuff?
The truth of the matter is we all are probably consuming GMOs,
because they have actually been a tremendous benefit not just to the
agricultural industry, but to us consumers. It gives us so many
different varieties of good quality food that we didn't have before.
So this is not about whether GMOs are a good thing or a bad thing.
They are about our side providing a vehicle to give a national labeling
system today, where there is none today. I think the consumers of
America will appreciate the fact that we did that.
I do want to go back and say one last thing about the coal ash bill.
There has been a lot of talk about somehow this bill weakening the EPA
regulation. Totally to the contrary, this bill codifies the regulation
in statutory law. Whereas under the present regime at the EPA they are
not going to do any oversight over how it is going to be implemented,
they are going to rely upon people to file lawsuits in various Federal
courts around the Nation, this bill provides that State regulators who
are already doing this for the most part will be the ones to provide
that regulation with their substantial expertise and experience, which,
I can tell you from my years of practicing law in Federal courts, the
vast majority of our Federal judges don't have that. They will do their
jobs. They will do their homework. Their law clerks will work with
them, but they won't bring to it what these State regulators have.
So we have substantially enhanced the regulation here. We have
substantially enhanced its implementation by having this bill before
the House and the House adopting it.
As they consider these two bills, I would urge everyone to understand
that what we have offered in these bills is good for consumers and it
is good for the economy of the United States because it lessens that
regulatory burden I have talked about at the beginning.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 369 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
3064) to authorize highway infrastructure and safety,
transit, motor carrier, rail, and other surface
transportation programs, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure and the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3064.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BYRNE. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 369, if
ordered; and agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if
ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239,
nays 167, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 450]
YEAS--239
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
[[Page H5356]]
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--167
Adams
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hastings
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--27
Aguilar
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Bridenstine
Buchanan
Carter (TX)
Castro (TX)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Costa
Esty
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Hurt (VA)
Israel
Kennedy
Kirkpatrick
Lynch
Moore
Sarbanes
Schiff
Smith (WA)
Waters, Maxine
Welch
Yarmuth
{time} 1352
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall
vote No. 450 on H. Res. 369. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yes.''
Stated against:
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 450, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242,
noes 175, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 451]
AYES--242
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--175
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hastings
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
[[Page H5357]]
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Buchanan
Carter (TX)
Castro (TX)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Esty
Graves (MO)
Gutierrez
Heck (WA)
Lynch
Moore
Stewart
Waters, Maxine
Yarmuth
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1401
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
personal explanation
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my vote was not recorded on
rollcall No. 450, the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question to the
Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1599 and H.R. 1734. I was not
present for the vote due to attending a national security briefing at
the White House. I intended to vote ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 451, the
Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1599 and H.R. 1734, I intended
to vote ``nay.''
____________________