[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 116 (Thursday, July 23, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H5416-H5439]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              SAFE AND ACCURATE FOOD LABELING ACT OF 2015


                             General Leave

  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1599.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 369 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1599.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1111


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1599) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with 
respect to food produced from, containing, or consisting of a 
bioengineered organism, the labeling of natural foods, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Simpson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo) and the gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Welch) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, is 
the product of diligent and bipartisan work by the Energy and Commerce 
Committee and the Agriculture Committee.
  Over the past year and a half that we have been working on this 
legislation, we have solicited input from Members and from relevant 
agencies like the FDA and the USDA. We have also met with the organic 
community, conventional farmers and ranchers, seed producers, 
scientists, and supply chain specialists.
  Throughout this process, we have sought to address every legitimate 
concern and provide whatever clarification might be necessary.
  The fact is that the scientific consensus on the safety of 
genetically engineered products is utterly overwhelming. Precisely zero 
pieces of credible evidence have been presented that foods produced 
with biotechnology pose any risk to our health and safety.
  Given this fact, it is not the place of government--government at any 
level--to arbitrarily step in and mandate that one plant product should 
be labeled based solely on how it was bred while another identical 
product is free of a government warning label because that producer 
chose a different breeding technology. That is unscientific, and that 
is bad public policy.
  The mandatory labeling of genetically engineered products has no 
basis in legitimate health or safety concerns, but is a naked attempt 
to impose the preferences of a small segment of the populace on the 
rest of us and make the constituents whom I serve in Kansas pay more 
for their food.
  A recent study shows that the proposed State GE labeling laws could 
raise the cost of the average family's food bill by, roughly, $500 per 
year. Many, many families in Kansas simply cannot afford that.
  Antibiotechnology interest groups are attempting to use State laws to 
force mandatory GE labeling on safe products and interfere with 
interstate commerce.
  To ensure that families in Kansas and all across the country have 
access to nutritious and affordable food, H.R. 1599 accomplishes three 
primary objectives.
  First, we ensure that every new GE plant destined to enter the food 
supply goes in for an FDA safety review.
  Second, we prevent the creation of what would be the unworkable 
patchwork of State-by-State--or even county-by-county or city-by-city--
mandatory GE labeling laws.

                              {time}  1115

  Finally, in order to provide clarity to those who prefer not to eat 
GE products, our bill authorizes a voluntary, user-fee-based non-GE 
labeling program at the USDA to provide even greater transparency and 
more options so that consumers, by ensuring a common definition for 
non-GMO for all foods, whether they are sold at the retail level or 
served in restaurants.
  Members of Congress need to realize that allowing activists to create 
a patchwork State-by-State set of rules will have a real effect on our 
families and our districts. Those who support mandatory GE products 
must admit they are willing to increase the cost of food for families 
in Wichita and Dallas and Grand Rapids and in Vermont and in Boston and 
all across our Nation based on unscientific demands of a handful of 
antibiotechnology activists.
  Congress' goal must be to ensure that people in those places have 
access to safe, nutritious, and affordable food to feed their families. 
A patchwork of laws will not accomplish that.
  The reality is that biotechnologies, time and time again, have proven 
safe. It is simply not debatable. U.S. policies should reflect that. We 
should not raise prices on consumers based on the wishes of a handful 
of activists. I ask for everyone to support H.R. 1599.
  Mr Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 2015.
     Hon. Michael K. Conaway,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Conaway: I write in regard to H.R. 1599, Safe 
     and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015, which was ordered 
     reported by the Committee on Agriculture on July 14, 2015. As 
     you are aware, the bill also was referred to the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce. I wanted to notify you that the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce will forgo action on H.R. 
     1599 so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor 
     for consideration.
       This is done with the understanding that the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce's jurisdictional interests over this and 
     similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. In 
     addition, the Committee reserves the right to seek conferees 
     on H.R. 1599 and requests your support when such a request is 
     made.
       I would appreciate your response confirming this 
     understanding with respect to H.R. 1599 and ask that a copy 
     of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the 
     House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Fred Upton,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                     Committee on Agriculture,

                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 2015.
     Hon. Fred Upton,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Upton: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 1599, ``Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015.'' I 
     appreciate your support in bringing this legislation before 
     the House of Representatives, and accordingly, understand 
     that the Committee on Energy and Commerce will forego action 
     on the bill.
       The Committee on Agriculture concurs in the mutual 
     understanding that by foregoing consideration of the bill at 
     this time, the Committee on Energy and Commerce does not 
     waive any jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in 
     this bill or similar legislation in the future. In addition, 
     should a

[[Page H5417]]

     conference on this bill be necessary, I would support your 
     request to have the Committee on the Energy and Commerce 
     represented on the conference committee.
       I will insert copies of this exchange in the Congressional 
     Record during Floor consideration. I appreciate your 
     cooperation regarding this legislation and look forward to 
     continuing to work the Committee on Energy and Commerce as 
     this bill moves through the legislative process.
           Sincerely,
                                               K. Michael Conaway,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. WELCH. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to address this issue that Mr. Pompeo and this 
bill present to this House. This question of GMO labeling and 
biotechnology is a good thing. Biotechnology has done a lot of good 
things for this country and for consumers. This is not a question about 
whether the science says that GMO foods cause medical issues. That is 
not the issue.
  The question is whether consumers, when they purchase food, have a 
right to know what is in it. What Mr. Pompeo and this legislation are 
suggesting is that, regardless of what consumers want, they won't be 
told.
  This bill does two fundamental things. One, it says to those States 
that this is not about a small group of activists. This is States like 
Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut with massive bipartisan votes, 
Republicans and Democrats saying that they wanted the right to have 
these products labeled, and then the consumer can decide whether he or 
she wants to purchase that product. It is the market that ultimately 
decides.
  This legislation would basically block all State laws that require 
mandatory GMO labeling; so if the State of Idaho, with its Republicans 
and Democrats in the legislature responding to the demands of its 
constituents, wanted to label it, they wouldn't be able to do it. It 
effectively blocks the FDA from creating a national labeling standard. 
That is the irony here.
  If you are talking preemption, you at least have to talk about a 
national standard that has credibility and provides information that 
consumers want. In this case, we strip from the States the right to do 
what they believe is in the interest of their citizens and don't 
substitute any serious label that would apply across the board. This 
claim that this would create a patchwork of different State laws is not 
addressed when you don't even offer a national standard.
  Next, it would allow ``natural'' claims on GMO foods and block State 
laws that prevent such claims. This legislation fundamentally takes 
away from your State and mine the ability to do what they believe is in 
the interest of their consumers: let them know what they are buying.
  By the way, what is the problem with letting consumers know what they 
are buying? They are the ones that decide what products they want to 
consume. The issue here, again, to repeat, is not about the science of 
whether GMOs cause health problems, but there is a significant issue 
about GMO products requiring significantly more herbicides in order to 
produce, and the use of herbicides--glyphosate has gone from 16 million 
pounds to about 280 million pounds since the introduction. Those 
farming practices do have an effect, and a lot of consumers are really 
concerned about that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the great State of Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
  Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise to lend my support to H.R. 
1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. As a mother, farmer, and 
former nutrition education teacher, I understand the importance of 
providing valuable information to consumers about where their food 
comes from and how it is grown.
  If we are going to face the growing challenges of obesity in this 
country and increasing demand for food worldwide, each and every 
American is going to have to engage in an honest dialogue about our 
food production and distribution systems.
  It is important that these systems are based on sound science, with a 
strong set of food labeling guidelines that are consistent across State 
lines, affordable for all Americans, and provide accurate and easy to 
understand information on the package for those consumers wanting to 
know more.
  H.R. 1599 is a mirror image of the successful USDA organic program 
that many of my constituents have come to appreciate and trust. This 
voluntary, commonsense option program is a compromise that balances the 
needs of both consumers and producers while providing a national path 
to getting consumers information that they may want.
  I thank the chairman for bringing this timely bill to the floor. I 
ask all my colleagues to support H.R. 1599.
  Mr. WELCH. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I have stated at our two Energy and 
Commerce Committee hearings on this issue that I am sympathetic to the 
need for Federal legislation.
  It does not make sense to have a patchwork of food labeling 
requirements in different States. I also do not believe that 
genetically engineered foods are unsafe. If they were unsafe, they 
would not be allowed on the market.
  However, I acknowledge that the majority of consumers want foods made 
with genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled as such. They 
view this as a right-to-know issue. While I don't know of any 
scientific reason to require GE foods to be labeled differently than 
non-GE foods, I do not believe we will be engendering confidence in 
these foods if we pass H.R. 1599.
  I feel that by preempting State right-to-know laws without creating 
any national labeling requirement, this legislation will be seen by 
most consumers as an attempt by Congress and Washington to prevent them 
from knowing which foods have GE ingredients, and therefore, I intend 
to vote against the bill.
  However, I also understand why others think this bill is important 
and will vote for it. Obviously, it is up to any Member to decide for 
him or herself how this affects constituents in their own districts and 
vote accordingly.
  Mr. POMPEO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Collins).
  Mr. COLLINS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act.
  As today's global food chain expands, consumers deserve to know what 
is in their food. H.R. 1599 eliminates confusion and saves taxpayers 
from shouldering the costs associated with a patchwork of State 
labeling laws.

  Additionally, H.R. 1599 ensures that our food supply is safe by 
clearly establishing the FDA as the preeminent authority to make 
science-based decisions concerning food safety. Currently, a patchwork 
of GMO labeling has emerged across our country, with some States having 
completely different food labeling requirements than others.
  This hodgepodge of regulation increases the cost of food for families 
and negatively impacts food producers. By increasing transparency, 
reducing the cost of regulations, and improving food safety, H.R. 1599 
will bring our Nation's food labeling into the 21st century.
  Mr. WELCH. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support H.R. 1599.
  This bill establishes a voluntary nationwide USDA-administered 
certification program for labeling genetically engineered food 
products, and we believe that this is a reasonable, workable solution 
that balances consumer demand to know more about their food with what 
we know about the safety of the foods that we produce.
  I didn't sign on to this bill initially because I thought we needed 
to make some changes, which were eventually made and made the bill 
supportable, from my perspective.
  This is a very important point. The bill ensures that every new 
genetically engineered plant destined to enter the market has to go 
through an FDA safety review. This change means that foods from 
genetically engineered plants will only be able to enter the 
marketplace after this happens, and that is a change from the current 
situation.
  H.R. 1599 prevents the unworkable scenario of a State-by-State, 
county-

[[Page H5418]]

by-county, or even city-by-city labeling law. This patchwork of laws 
would only create confusion for consumers, farmers, and food companies 
and would also drive up consumer grocery bills.
  I acknowledge that consumers want to know what they are eating, and 
in my opinion, H.R. 1599 provides them with that information. Before we 
can do anything in this area, we have to define what this means, and if 
you talk to five different people about what genetically engineered or 
genetically modified means, you are going to get five different 
answers.
  One of the things that will happen with this bill if it becomes law 
is that the USDA will go through a process, talking to all the 
stakeholders, and come up with a definition of what this means, which I 
think is one of the most important things because, right now, I think 
there is a real disconnect between the science on this issue and the 
consumers.
  What this bill does is allows companies like companies in my district 
to go and work with the Secretary to create a non-GMO label, 
nongenetically engineered label.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WELCH. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. PETERSON. Then consumers can find out. If they want to purchase 
nongenetically engineered products, there are companies out there that 
are going to provide them.
  I think this doesn't get to where a lot of people want to get, but it 
gets us a long ways down the road. It will be able to define what this 
means and put in place a workable solution that I think people should 
support.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1599.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  When considering the substitute reported by the Committee on 
Agriculture, I would like to confirm that the committee was aware that 
many ingredients derived from genetically engineered crops have been so 
highly refined that they contain no genetically engineered material and 
that finished food products produced with such ingredients, likewise, 
would contain no genetically engineered material.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMPEO. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. It certainly is our 
understanding that products--and sugar is a good example of those--may 
come from a GE crop, but the finished product has no genetic material 
in it.
  Mr. POMPEO. This fact exemplifies why labeling as to whether or not 
food has been produced through genetic engineering is appropriately 
voluntary, not mandatory, as it seems unnecessary to require labeling 
about the use of genetic engineering if the labeled food contains no 
genetically engineered material.
  I would just add--and hope that the gentleman from Texas would 
concur--that this approach is consistent with the exemption from the 
labeling requirements for major food allergens that Congress has 
established for highly refined oils as part of the Food Allergen 
Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004.
  While the eight major food allergens--milk, egg, fish, crustacean 
shellfish, tree nuts, wheat, peanuts, and soybeans--must be listed on 
food labels where they or ingredients containing protein derived from 
these allergens are added to food, the definition of ``major food 
allergen'' excludes any highly refined oil derived from a major food 
allergen and ``any ingredient derived from such highly refined oil.''
  Mr. CONAWAY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMPEO. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman is 
correct. This is a perfect example of why passage of this legislation 
is so important.
  Mr. POMPEO. I thank the gentleman.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  (Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1599. Mankind 
has used biological technologies for more than 10,000 years to improve 
crops and livestock and to make useful food products, such as bread, 
cheese, and to preserve dairy products.
  When applied to plant breeding, these technologies have led to 
evolution of nearly every food product we consume. These and other 
advances have enabled us to proudly boast that we enjoy the safest, 
highest quality, most abundant, diverse, and affordable food supply and 
fiber mankind has ever known.
  As our knowledge has increased, so has the speed and precision in 
which we are able to harness natural capabilities to improve the plants 
that we cultivate. These new applications of biotechnology have been 
available to American and international consumers for some three 
decades.
  The safety of technology has been documented and confirmed by the 
world's leading scientific and public health organizations, including 
the World Health Organization, the National Academies of Science, the 
American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American 
Medical Association, and the Royal Society of Great Britain.

                              {time}  1130

  The House Agriculture Committee has frequently reviewed these 
technologies. We have reviewed the regulatory mechanism that has been 
in place since the Reagan administration and have been regularly 
assured by the absence of any valid concerns regarding the safety or 
quality of products derived from these production technologies.
  Biotechnology is an essential tool for farmers and our food supply to 
have in the toolbox. If we plan to feed the estimated 10 billion people 
in the year 2050 in an environmentally sound, sustainable, affordable 
way, they must be used.
  Unfortunately, threats exist to our ability to fully utilize this 
technology in the form of proposed Federal and State laws as well as 
some new State laws that will be implemented soon if we don't act. 
Passage of any new antibiotech laws and amendments or implementation of 
those already passed will likely have far-reaching negative 
consequences, which we will debate today.
  The legislation before the House today addresses this threat in a 
manner that pays tribute to the successful voluntary, market-driven 
programs administered by the Department of Agriculture. These programs 
have not only enabled farmers to receive premiums in the marketplace 
for their efforts to distinguish their products, they have appealed to 
the growing desire of many food-conscious consumers. One such example 
is the highly successful National Organic Program, many aspects of 
which we have replicated in this legislation.
  The structure and coverage of this legislation, like that of the 
National Organic Program, will assure consumers are given reliable, 
accurate, and consistent information related to the genetic 
engineering, whether it is at the retail level or at a restaurant.
  In developing this legislation, we worked in a bipartisan fashion 
between the Agriculture and the Energy and Commerce Committees, 
receiving and integrating the ideas and suggestions of Federal 
agencies, organic interests, conventional producers and handlers, and 
more.
  Mr. Chairman, mandatory labels are used as a warning or a caution. 
Even our opponents to this legislation have said there is no safety 
issue here that we are talking about to ``scare'' potential consumers. 
We believe this voluntary program meets that need of letting consumers 
know, and I urge support of the bill.
  Mr. WELCH. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. 
Gabbard).
  Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Chairman, I am rising today in strong opposition to 
H.R. 1599, which actually stands in direct contradiction to the wishes 
of almost 90 percent of Americans across the country. It is no wonder 
that this legislation has more commonly become known to people who are 
very concerned about this issue as the DARK Act, or the Deny Americans 
the Right to Know Act. And that is really what is at issue here.

[[Page H5419]]

  This legislation makes a mockery of transparency and leaves U.S. 
consumers in the dark. What are they so afraid of? Why deprive 
Americans of the ability to make educated choices about whether they 
want food with genetically modified ingredients? Why make the labeling 
of such food just voluntary? Why not require it as you require basic 
nutrition information on processed foods now? Why not join the 64 other 
countries, including the EU, Japan, Australia, Brazil, and China, in 
empowering our constituents with information, making mandatory 
labeling?
  My State of Hawaii is the number one State for experimental 
genetically engineered plant field trials, according to the USDA. Many 
of my constituents are very concerned about GE crop field testing 
because of the lack of information about these trials and the 
pesticides that are being applied to the fields.
  On the island of Kauai, in my district, residents organized and 
passed an ordinance requiring large agrochemical companies to disclose 
the pesticides they are spraying and observe buffer zones around 
schools, homes, and hospitals to prevent chemical spray drifts.
  The DARK Act could overrule the rights of these local communities to 
make such decisions to protect their health and safety and guide the 
growth of their agricultural industries.
  This legislation could overturn a ban on the cultivation of 
genetically engineered coffee passed by Hawaii Island constituents, 
potentially damaging the global reputation of Hawaii's famous and 
unique Kona coffee, the only domestic coffee industry in our country. 
It could negate a ban on the cultivation of genetically engineered 
taro, endangering a main staple and culturally significant plant for 
indigenous Native Hawaiians.
  This is why I am calling on my colleagues to adopt the Genetically 
Engineered Food Right-to-Know-Act. I urge my colleagues today to vote 
against the DARK Act and support commonsense labeling as we move 
forward.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that there is some 
misinformation here. This legislation has literally nothing to do with 
rules about cultivation. State laws will be able to continue to govern 
that. That is simply about labeling. I think it is important every one 
know that.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1599, the 
Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act.
  When any Federal agency mandates what used to be a voluntary process, 
it can only add to a bureaucratic headache. A mandatory process for FDA 
food labeling approvals would create increased costs for businesses and 
consumers, invite potential litigation, and burden our Nation's farmers 
and small businesses.
  I am pleased to see that this bill streamlines the voluntary FDA 
labeling process, with the help of the USDA, to make a combined, joint 
effort to label food headed to the market. Having uniform rules for 
foods with a GMO-free label will benefit consumers and alleviate 
struggles with interstate commerce in response to a patchwork of State 
and local labeling standards. H.R. 1599 will help give consumers an 
opportunity to make an informed choice at the supermarket, while also 
advancing food safety and consistency in our food labels.
  I thank my colleagues in the Agriculture Committee as well as the 
Energy and Commerce Committee for finding a way to make this change in 
a simple and most effective way.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for 
yielding.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 1599. This legislation, which should be 
called the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act, or DARK Act, 
represents a major threat to consumer information. States have the 
right to determine their own local laws relating to GMO labeling, and 
the Federal Government shouldn't interfere.
  I frequently hear Republicans talk about states' rights and talk 
about the big, bad Federal Government; but when it comes down to it, 
here they want to take away the rights of States and counties and the 
voice of people, instead to support huge corporations and companies.
  Polls prove again and again Americans want to know what is in their 
food. Nine out of ten Americans support genetically engineered 
labeling, including majorities of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, 
Whites, Latinos, Blacks. What else can bring everybody together? This 
isn't a ``handful of activists'' we are talking about here. We are 
talking about 90 percent of the American people.
  It is the right of States to be able to determine how they label 
their food. States are doing it as we speak, just as they do with many 
other things: sell-by requirements; labels on bottled water around 
deposit requirements; States requiring origin of seafood and catfish, 
whether it is farm raised or wild caught.
  It is a vibrant discussion across the States that we should not 
preempt here in Washington at the behest of a couple major world 
corporations. We are talking about the rights of hundreds of counties 
and States and tribes to talk about how close to schools and hospitals 
pesticides can be used that relate to genetically modified organisms. 
Do we really want pesticides used to kill superbugs sprayed across your 
5-year-old child's playground?
  These are the States that we are talking about, not a handful of 
activists. It includes States like Texas, where legislation has been 
introduced.
  This bill will remove everything that has the right to know for 
people and for States. We need to stand up to fight for the right to 
allow States and consumers to make these kinds of choices for 
themselves. That is why I cosponsored my colleague from Maine's 
substitute amendment, which will remove the preemption language from 
the bill.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the DARK Act and to support consumer 
transparency.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have heard on multiple occasions about this 90 percent number in 
some poll about folks who want to have this labeling. This doesn't even 
pass the smell test.
  When consumers were asked to list the items they would like to see 
labeled, exactly 7 percent of respondents to a 2013 Rutgers University 
study volunteered GMOs. Frankly, the most reliable survey, the ballot 
box, has been 100 percent consistent. Every time a GMO labeling bill 
has been presented to voters in any State in the United States of 
America, they have rejected it.
  There is most certainly not 90 percent of the folks wanting to know 
that. This bill will not deny those handful that do the right to do 
that. It is disingenuous to offer up anything to the contrary.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1599.
  There are real sensitivities around GMOs and all issues regarding the 
food we eat and feed our children and grandchildren. It is our job as 
policymakers, particularly as it relates to the public health, to 
establish a factually and scientifically sound foundation prior to 
taking any action that would impact consumers in our economy.
  The bill before us today, H.R. 1599, does just that by ensuring 
national uniformity regarding labeling of foods derived from 
genetically engineered plants by preventing a patchwork of conflicting 
State or local labeling laws which inherently interfere with interstate 
and foreign commerce.
  Genetic engineering in agriculture has occurred for centuries. 
Ingredients from genetically engineered plants have been a part of the 
U.S. food supply for decades. In fact, as much as 90 percent of our 
corn, sugar beet, and soybean crops are now genetically engineered, and 
more than 70 percent of processed foods contain ingredients derived 
from such crops.
  The FDA oversees the safety of all food products from plant sources, 
including those from genetically engineered crops. These products must 
meet the same safety requirements as foods from traditionally bred 
crops.
  The FDA currently has a consultation process in place in which 
developers of the underlying technologies address any outstanding 
safety or other regulatory issues with the agency prior to marketing 
their products. The FDA has completed approximately

[[Page H5420]]

100 of such consultations. No products have gone to market until FDA 
safety-related questions have been resolved.
  FDA officials have repeatedly stated that the agency has no basis for 
concluding that bioengineered foods are different from other foods in a 
meaningful way, and the World Health Organization has confirmed that 
``no effects on human health have been shown as a result of consumption 
of such foods.'' In fact, they can grow faster, resist diseases and 
drought, cost less, and prove more nutritious.
  Nonetheless, there recently have been a number of State initiatives 
calling for mandatory labeling of food products that contain GMOs. I am 
concerned that a patchwork of State labeling schemes would be 
impractical and unworkable. Such a system would create confusion among 
consumers and result in higher prices and fewer options.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend Representatives Pompeo and Butterfield for 
their leadership on this legislation. I thank my colleagues on the 
Agriculture Committee for working through any issues and reaching 
consensus between the sponsors, committees of jurisdiction, 
implementing agencies, and impacted stakeholders. I commend the 
legislation to the House and urge its adoption.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Welch and Mr. McGovern for 
their work on this issue.
  Ladies and gentlemen, one of the most important lessons I have 
learned in the years I have been in this great body is that we have got 
to be aware of unintended consequences.
  While some claim genetically modified organisms are safe beyond a 
reasonable doubt, the simple fact is that there is a great deal that we 
do not know about a technology that alters the basic building blocks of 
nature.
  We have more to learn about how the widespread use of GMOs could hurt 
the resilience of our food system by reducing the diversity of plant 
species, and there is much research to undertake on how the chemicals 
that are used concurrently with GMOs threaten human health.
  Just this year, the World Health Organization found the herbicide 
glyphosate to be a probable cause of cancer. GMOs are designed 
specially to be used with great quantities of this chemical, and the 
herbicide is being used in increasing quantities around the world.
  This is why Pope Francis, himself, recently spoke of the need to 
exercise greater caution with regard to genetical manipulation by 
biotechnology. This is why more than 90 percent of Americans want GMO 
labeling, according to recent polling.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1599 would make it impossible for people to even 
be mindful of unintended consequences. It makes it impossible for 
people to know what they are purchasing and eating. It prevents States 
from taking prudent actions to protect consumers and farmworkers.
  Our Nation's leading legal organizations, environmental groups, 
consumer groups, and food safety groups all oppose H.R. 1599 because it 
is an attack on transparency and a dangerous attack on our great 
tradition of federalism.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), an 
original cosponsor, who is responsible for getting this bill to the 
state it is in today.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Pompeo for yielding time 
and thank him for his leadership on this issue. I thank Mr. Welch for 
his very thoughtful debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1599 and urge my colleagues 
to vote ``yes'' on final passage. This bipartisan bill, cosponsored by 
106 of our colleagues, creates a science-based nationwide labeling 
standard for plant-based foods.
  It establishes a national GMO-free certification program administered 
by USDA that will provide a government-issued label to qualifying 
products which will provide a market advantage.
  It requires the FDA to conduct premarket safety reviews of all new GM 
plant varieties before they can be used to produce food, and it 
requires the FDA to define the term ``natural'' through a rulemaking 
process allowing for public input and discussion.
  Despite the downright false claims made by the opponents of what it 
will or won't do, H.R. 1599 is a measured approach. It gives consumers 
certainty, while taking into account the delicate balance and sheer 
size and complexity of the food supply chain that employs tens of 
millions of Americans and is responsible for feeding the country.
  My opinion is shared by the bill's 106 sponsors and by 475 
agriculture, science, hunger, and nutrition organizations from all 50 
States.
  The alternative to H.R. 1599, already beginning to play out in some 
States across the country, is a complex and unworkable patchwork of 
differing State laws that create an uneven playing field that only can 
cause confusion among consumers and do little to provide transparency.
  Depending on what State regulations require, farmers and 
manufacturers would be forced to set up separate supply chains in order 
to comply with as many as 50 different State laws. Wholesale changes to 
growing, packaging, and shipping foods would have to be made, beginning 
at the farm and all the way to the supermarket shelf, in order to 
comply.
  The new infrastructure requirements are as daunting as they are 
costly. You can bet that all of these costs will be passed on to our 
constituents, with a recent study showing the average cost topping $500 
a year. For many of my constituents and others across the country, that 
will not work.
  Despite going in with knowledge of the consequences that would result 
from upending a highly integrated and interconnected system, several 
States have already moved forward with proposals that would require 
foods containing these ingredients to be labeled. This is in response 
to an unsubstantiated claim that foods containing GM ingredients are in 
some way dangerous; they are not.
  Foods containing GM ingredients are safe. Don't take my word for it. 
The science regarding the safety of bioengineered foods is not murky--
the opposite, in fact. There have been over 2,000 studies worldwide 
that shows foods grown from these plants are safe.
  The FDA, USDA, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, the 
American Medical Association, National Academy of Sciences, the 
American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health 
Organization, and nearly every major scientific organization agrees 
that foods produced with bioengineered products are as safe as their 
non-GMO counterparts.
  Even opponents of GM foods admit they ``have failed to produce any 
untoward health effects,'' but the demonization of GM foods continue, 
despite objective science proving the contrary. Those opposed to these 
foods simply reject science. That is tremendously disappointing. Along 
with the bill's bipartisan cosponsors--again, 106--I stand with the 
science.
  That is why I have worked with my friend, Mr. Pompeo, and the bill's 
cosponsors, in advocating for a Federal framework, a Federal framework 
that puts the FDA and USDA--our Nation's foremost food safety 
authorities--in the driver's seat.
  H.R. 1599 is a balanced approach that reduces confusion by providing 
consumers with labeling uniformity across State lines. It also 
addresses the concerns of those opposed to GM foods by establishing a 
program at USDA that will provide a Federal certification for GMO-free 
foods, while not neglecting the fact that our Nation's farmers and 
manufacturers grow and produce foods that are sold far and wide.
  Without a Federal standard, those farmers and manufacturers will be 
forced to comply with uneven, costly, potentially misleading, onerous 
State-by-State mandates.
  Compliance will require a new, costly supply chain infrastructure 
that will disrupt our food supply. It will cause confusion, Mr. 
Chairman, and uncertainty among consumers and, ultimately, will result 
in the consumer shouldering the increased costs associated with 
production.
  In that regard, I thank Chairman Conaway for his commitment to work 
with livestock and meat producers, many of whom operate farms and 
processing facilities in North Carolina, to

[[Page H5421]]

address concerns about the definition of those products in the bill.
  I share Mr. Conaway's commitment to getting the language right on 
those products and ensuring fair and accurate labeling, and I thank him 
for working so diligently with Mr. Peterson on these amendments.
  In conclusion, H.R. 1599 is reasonable and, Mr. Chairman, it is 
workable.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I have an idea. It is a radical idea. It 
is something that is unprecedented for this Congress, something that 
would genuinely surprise the American people. That idea is simple; 
let's give the American people what they want.
  Poll after poll shows that an overwhelming majority of the American 
people favor mandatory GMO labeling. People want to know what is in 
their food that they eat, and they want to know how it is grown. We 
should give them what they want; yet the bill before us goes in the 
opposite direction. It keeps the American people in the dark about 
whether their food contains GMOs. It is no wonder why Congress is so 
unpopular.
  To the supporters of this ``keep Americans in the dark'' bill, I 
would ask one simple question: What are you afraid of?
  This debate is not about whether GMOs are good or bad. I consume 
GMOs; my kids consume GMOs. This is about consumers' rights to know 
what is in the food that they eat, plain and simple.
  As many of my colleagues know, I am passionate about ending hunger, 
both here in this country and around the world. If I thought for one 
second that GMO labeling would cause food prices to rise, I wouldn't be 
calling for GMO labeling.
  This is a scare tactic being used by opponents of GMOs labeling. The 
fact is companies change their labels all the time, for all kinds of 
reasons. Transportation and commodity prices are drivers of food 
prices, not labeling.
  If you are worried about 50 States requiring 50 different labels, 
then support mandatory GMO labeling. Do not override States that have 
already embraced GMO labeling or consumers who want them. Sixty-four 
countries already have GMO labeling. Why can't we?

  American food companies already have to label their foods as 
containing GMOs in those countries. Why can't American consumers have 
access to the same information? Keeping consumers in the dark about 
what is in their food is the wrong approach.
  It is a ``Washington knows best'' approach from politicians inside 
the beltway who think they know better than the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1599.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the amount of time 
remaining on each side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas has 10 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Vermont has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. LaMalfa).
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act.
  I also have great appreciation for the effort by Mr. Pompeo for a 
thoughtful and bipartisan bill that will be successful.
  Some of the opponents of this bill, based off clear speculation and 
fear-mongering, are again trying to deny America's first industry--
farming--the necessary technology it needs to grow more food to meet 
consumer demand in this generation and the next.
  In what other industry do we discourage innovation? Why is it that 
farming technology meets such scorn perpetuated by activist groups that 
stand to gain financially by tearing down modern agricultural 
practices?
  Across numerous States, including my home State of California, voters 
resoundingly rejected State-mandated GMO labeling. The facts are clear. 
Biotechs have facilitated the growth of more nutritious crops, all the 
while reducing pesticide spraying by an estimated 975 million pounds.
  Biotech crops have also increased crops produced, saved over 300 
million acres of land, and helped alleviate poverty for 16.5 million 
small farmers and farm families, while reducing agriculture's--wait for 
it--greenhouse gases.
  While some of the colleagues across the aisle have advocated 
consumers have a right to know--and I agree--but mandated labeling will 
only cause more consumer confusion, while drastically increasing the 
cost of foods for families at the store shelf across the entire Nation. 
This bill allows consumers to have a choice by establishing a voluntary 
non-GMO labeling program, much like the successful national organic 
program.
  It is about common sense and delivering consumers what they want, 
choice and confidence while buying their foods without unnecessary 
confusion and high costs. A uniform, 50-State standard helps achieve 
that goal.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1599. This 
misguided legislation would limit consumers' access to information 
about the food they eat by preempting State laws and codifying the 
current failed system.
  I want to be clear. This is not a debate about whether or not 
genetically-engineered foods are safe. It is a debate about whether or 
not consumers have a right to know what is in their food is the point I 
hope we can all agree upon.
  Unfortunately, consumers currently do not have access to the 
information they are looking for when it comes to genetically 
engineered foods. Current labeling standards are so ineffective that 
consumers are often confused by the information that they do find.
  Consumers should be able to trust that the labeling on food is both 
accurate and truthful. Consumers should not be confused about something 
as basic and fundamental as the food they eat, but rather than fix this 
problem, H.R. 1599 simply perpetuates the status quo of confusion.
  The food industry claims the current voluntary system is adequate and 
consumers do have information they need; yet despite the fact that 
there are great numbers of genetically engineered foods on the market, 
very few of them have been labeled as such.
  Our constituents want to know how their food is made, and they are 
calling on us to help make this information more accessible, but 
instead of responding to this call, this flawed legislation ignores the 
problem and makes it even harder to require labeling in the future. It 
removes FDA's authority to craft a national labeling solution yet also 
prevents States from acting on their own.
  Simply put, this bill prioritizes profits over consumer choice and 
keeps consumers in the dark. That is why I strongly oppose this bill, 
and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington State (Mr. Newhouse).
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas.
  As a third-generation farmer and a former director of my State's 
Department of Agriculture, I cannot stress enough the importance of 
this legislation for our Nation and our world's food supply.
  Yesterday, I spoke on the merits of preventing a patchwork of 
conflicting State and local GMO labeling laws which would require 
producers to sell under potentially hundreds of different labels, and I 
still believe that is a very important element to this debate.
  However, there is another aspect I would like to address on why I 
believe this mandatory labeling law, which some of my colleagues have 
called for, is a very poor idea.
  Mr. Chairman, I question the motives behind some of these arguments. 
They say they ``want consumers to have information'' but that can't 
actually be their concern because this legislation gives consumers 
information. It is disingenuous to claim it doesn't.
  If you want to go to a store and buy a ``non-GMO'' product, much like 
``organic'' or ``cage-free,'' you can do that under this legislation. 
It will provide consumers all the information they need to purchase 
food they think is right for their families.
  So what is their motive?
  Is it they want to try to scare consumers, to demonize this 
technology?

[[Page H5422]]

                             Point of Order

  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. WELCH. The point of order is the speaker is questioning motives 
of those on the other side of this argument.
  The CHAIR. Is the gentleman asking that the gentleman's words be 
taken down?
  Mr. WELCH. No, but I would suggest that the----
  The CHAIR. The Chair would generally advise Members to avoid engaging 
in personalities.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, antiscience, fear-mongering strategies 
cannot be left unanswered. I believe there are a few things people 
should know about biotechnology.
  First, I appreciate anyone's safety concerns. That is why it is 
important to note that the USDA and the FDA rigorously test every 
biotech crop for human safety for years before anything can be brought 
to the market.
  To be clear, no peer-reviewed study--and there have been hundreds--
has ever found GMO foods have caused health concerns, ever.

                              {time}  1200

  Individuals have concerns about environmental impacts. I appreciate 
that, too. But what many people don't know is that, by turning on just 
one gene in corn, we now have a corn that is significantly more pest-
resistant, which means huge reductions in the use of pesticides. We can 
do this with other crops as well. To be probiotech is to be 
proenvironment.
  There is a type of rice that is vitamin A-enriched and has the 
ability to prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of blindness and 
death from vitamin A deficiency around the world.
  There is a really nasty type of wheat rot called UG-99 spreading from 
Africa and the Middle East that has the ability to kill 90 percent of 
the world's wheat supply.
  To be clear, this would cause a global famine. Scientists are looking 
at a way to create rot-resistant wheat through biotechnology and gene 
sequencing, which would save millions and millions of lives.
  Mr. Chair, this technology is good proenvironment, lifesaving 
technology. And while I agree we need to have a system to give 
consumers the freedom to use it or not, which this bill does, we cannot 
allow antiscience opponents of biotechnology to use scare tactics that 
would cost millions of lives in the end.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Schrader).
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chair, as a veterinarian and an organic farmer, 
having spent 6 years in the House Ag Committee, including 2 as ranking 
member of the Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research Subcommittee, I 
have studied GMOs very closely, and it is something I take very 
seriously. In fact, back in the eighties, I helped write our State 
organic standards in Oregon.
  For thousands of years, humans have grown or bred plants and animals 
to choose the most desirable traits for breeding the next generations 
in an effort to help them to be able to resist pests, disease, and 
increase yields.
  Through biotechnology, we have been able to increase productivity and 
efficiency while reducing the number of inputs, like water and 
pesticides, resulting in higher crop yields. Higher crop yields per 
acre allow for better land management and the conservation of marginal 
lands.
  GMOs, in combination with good agricultural practices, also improve 
soil quality and reduce pollution by allowing farmers to till, work the 
ground, less often or not at all, reducing soil erosion and reducing 
the carbon footprint of agriculture.
  If you are worried about climate change and want good science, you 
should be for this bill. GM crops flourish in challenging environments 
without the aid of expensive pesticides or equipment that play an 
important role in alleviating hunger and food stress in the developing 
world.
  This is precisely why I am very concerned about the demonization of 
biotechnology and the rejection by many of the supporting science 
behind it.
  Food labeling should be about health and safety. The reason we have 
USDA and FDA is to provide uniform protection to consumers across this 
country, to avoid a patchwork of politically motivated, nonscientific, 
mythological regulations by activists, not scientists. And right to 
know is protected in this bill.
  We have heard from many on polls. I would like to cite one. The Pew 
Research Center conducted a poll recently and found that nearly 90 
percent--yes, 90 percent--of the scientific community found genetically 
engineered food is safe and poses no health threat to the environment 
or humans.
  H.R. 1599 provides a uniform standard for non-GMO products through a 
USDA-administered program and ensures national uniformity for non-GE 
claims, providing consistency in the marketplace while ensuring 
consumer confidence in the integrity of the label.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from 
Kansas (Mr. Pompeo). I know this hasn't been an easy path to get to 
where we are today, to allow for consumers in all 50 States to be able 
to know what is in their food.
  I congratulate my colleague from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo) on the hard work 
he and his staff and those on the House Energy and Commerce Committee 
and House Ag Committee have put forth to make this bill a reality 
today.
  I am proud, as a subcommittee chairman on the House Ag Committee for 
Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research, to put my name on an 
amendment to this bill.
  I am proud to stand here today to support this bill as a member of 
that committee and, also, as a dad who is responsible for shopping for 
many of the products that we are going to see this label put on in the 
grocery stores when I go home every weekend.
  Biotechnology is crucial to our ability to feed the world. It is a 
critical technology, so much so in my district in central Illinois that 
earlier this month I went on a biotech tour in my district.
  I visited plants and research facilities from Litchfield, Illinois, 
to Clinton, Illinois. I met with workers and scientists who are 
committed to developing better seed products that will help us feed a 
growing world.
  Mr. Chairman, it will help us feed a growing world. So many people 
that don't live in this great country, where we take for granted our 
ability to have access to the safest food supply on this globe, don't 
have access to food.
  Biotechnology allows us to grow that food in countries where people 
need food. They need to eat. They don't know where their next meal is 
coming from. Without biotechnology, we are not going to be able to feed 
the billions that are going to be required in the coming years.
  I want to tell you about Pioneer technology in Litchfield, Illinois, 
who is developing a soybean seed that won't have transfats. I thought 
that was good, Mr. Chairman. But this is the type of technology that we 
are talking about here.
  Science is on our side. Science shows that GMOs and biotechnology are 
safe. As a matter of fact, just earlier today I was at a panel 
discussion with Alexis Taylor, the Deputy Under Secretary for Farm and 
Foreign Agricultural Services right here at our USDA.
  She even made a comment that GMOs are good for climate change. That 
should make many of my colleagues in this Chamber happy. But, 
unfortunately, I don't think that will get them to ``yes'' on this 
vote.
  We are hearing a lot about motives, Mr. Chairman. Our motives are to 
make sure that every single American in all 50 States has access, has 
the transparency, knows what is in their food.
  This is exactly what H.R. 1599 is going to do for every single one of 
them. Every mom and dad in this country is going to know what is in 
their food.
  That is exactly why we are doing this. That is exactly why I am here 
to support this bill. That is exactly why I am proud of my colleague 
from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo) for doing exactly what we are going to do 
today.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, I will now enter into the Record two articles, 
``Mandatory GMO Labeling'' and ``NFU Union Reiterates Support for 
Mandatory GMO Labeling.''

[[Page H5423]]

               [From the Huffington Post, July 23, 2015]

            Mandatory GMO Labeling--It's Your Right To Know

                          (By Gary Hirshberg)

       The crossfire on whether or not to require mandatory 
     labeling of GMOs has become so heated and partisan that it's 
     hard to discern the facts from rhetoric. The latest volley 
     was last week's Slate essay that challenged labeling 
     proponents' lack of substantive proof that GMOs are unsafe or 
     unhealthy. Author William Saletan raises many valid points, 
     but equally fails to address the hyperbole and enormous gaps 
     between the promise and actual performance of agricultural 
     biotechnology. But beyond this imbalance, he entirely misses 
     the fact that there is a long history of government-enacted 
     labeling disclosures that have nothing to do with safety 
     concerns. There are no unique risks associated with orange 
     juice ``from concentrate'' compared to fresh juice, or from 
     ``wild caught'' vs. farmed fish, but both require labeling so 
     that consumers can choose. Most content on food labels is 
     government mandated, marketing oriented, or intended to 
     inform consumers about information that people just want to 
     know.
       And that is the fact that trumps all the others. Despite 
     years of heated and often exaggerated rhetoric on both sides 
     of the GMO labeling debate, poll after poll reveals that the 
     public's skepticism has remained unchanged and that people 
     just want to know. The latest Mellman polls show the same 
     results as polls taken three years ago--nine in every 10 of 
     Americans want labels on foods containing GMOs so they can 
     make up their own minds. Here are the three reasons why this 
     choice makes sense:


                     Inadequate Scientific Research

       There have been essentially no studies by the government or 
     independent researchers designed to assess the long-term 
     public health impacts of growing and consuming GMO crops. FDA 
     approvals are essentially based on studies conducted by 
     industry. GMO technology developers design and conduct all of 
     the studies carried out on their own inventions, interpret 
     the results (almost always finding ``no new or novel risk''), 
     and report their conclusion to the Food and Drug 
     Administration (FDA) as part of a ``voluntary consultation.'' 
     The FDA then performs a cursory appraisal of the submitted 
     data, and rarely asks for additional information. It does not 
     verify the data's reliability, nor attempt to independently 
     confirm the conclusions drawn from it by the companies. This 
     is why the FDA is always careful to say, in closing out a 
     ``voluntary consultation'' that ``you [the company] have 
     concluded . . .''
       The lack of credible, independent research on GMO safety, 
     performance, and economics is the root cause of lingering 
     controversies over GMO crops like papaya and golden rice, as 
     well as confusion over whether Integrated Pest Management, 
     organic systems, or GMOs are the best way to deal with pests.
       In order for us to be able to trust the science, both the 
     public and private sectors need to invest more heavily in the 
     work and careers of independent scientists willing to develop 
     and apply improved tools to monitor the impacts of GMO 
     technology and alternatives. Until then, skepticism will not 
     diminish, in spite of the propaganda.


   Drastically increased herbicide use despite claims to the contrary

       While proponents promised that GMO crops would reduce 
     pesticide use, they have, in fact, locked farmers into 
     unilateral, chemical and toxin-based pest management systems 
     that are bad for farmers, the environment, and consumers. 
     However, the use of herbicides, a category of pesticides that 
     kill weeds, has explosively increased, according to USDA 
     survey data. Where GMO soybeans and cotton are grown in 2015, 
     overall per acre herbicide plus insecticide use will be close 
     to double the level in 1996 at the dawn of the GMO era.
       Since the mid-1990s, when biotech companies introduced 
     genetically engineered crops that are not adversely impacted 
     by the herbicide glyphosate, its use has increased 16-fold to 
     the point where the USGS has found glyphosate in 60-100 
     percent of Iowa rainwater. Over-use of this formerly 
     effective weed control has led to the rapid spread of over a 
     dozen serious glyphosate-resistant weeds, so now farmers must 
     now spray three, four, or five herbicides. This includes 
     older products with greater potential to cause damage. 
     Farmers also now apply herbicides throughout the growing 
     season instead of a single application at the beginning with 
     greater potential to damage the soil, harm wildlife, and 
     increase collateral damage, particularly among those living 
     in farming areas and drinking water with multiple herbicide 
     residues in it.
       Thanks in large part to to GMO crop technology, glyphosate 
     is now by far the most heavily used pesticide in history, 
     both in the U.S. and worldwide. Glyphosate is now showing-up 
     in the drinking water, air and breast milk of mothers in 
     areas where these herbicides are in concentrated use. Most 
     people on the planet are exposed to glyphosate on a near-
     daily basis. And this past spring, the world's most respected 
     cancer research group--the World Health Organization's 
     International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified 
     glyphosate as ``probably carcinogenic.''
       So to summarize, regardless of whether GMOs are ultimately 
     found to be safe to eat, the WHO IARC findings raise serious 
     questions about whether they are safe to grow. As resistance 
     continues to escalate due to over-use, farmers will have no 
     choice but to continue increasing their use of these toxic 
     herbicides. This is surely material to us all.


                     It's Simply Our Right to Know

       Responsible advocates are not demanding mandatory GMO 
     labeling because they are unsafe; we are demanding labeling 
     because people want, and have a right to know how our foods 
     are grown. Just Label It and other responsible labeling 
     proponents have never argued that science has proven GMOs to 
     be unsafe, although we have and will continue to make the 
     case for more in-depth, independent science using state-of-
     the-art methods to be as sure as possible that they are safe. 
     But while scientific questions persist over the safety of 
     today's GMO crops, the now sharply upward trajectory in the 
     amount of herbicide needed to bring most GMO crops to harvest 
     on every continent on which GMO, herbicide-tolerant crops 
     have been planted, is deeply worrisome.
       People have dozens of valid reasons for wanting to know 
     whether their food is from genetically engineered crops. Some 
     are grounded in religious or ethical views. Others reflect 
     concern over the long-term consequences of corporate control 
     over both seeds and the food supply. Yet others legitimately 
     believe that there has been inadequate independent testing of 
     GMOs for health and safety.
       Whatever the reason, it is clear that facts and rhetoric 
     will continue to be debated for years to come. In the 
     interim, mandatory labeling of GMO foods will give consumers 
     another option to steer clear of uncertainty and support 
     farming systems and technology more closely aligned with 
     personal values and concerns. This Thursday, Congress will 
     vote on H.R. 1599 the so-called Safe and Accurate Food 
     Labeling Act (colloquially called the ``DARK Act'' for 
     Denying Americans the Right to Know), which deceptively 
     purports to support federal labeling disclosures. But in 
     fact, this bill would effectively block any hopes of American 
     joining the other 64 nations around the world who have 
     instituted mandatory GMO labeling. This bill needs to be 
     stopped so that all interested parties--food companies, 
     farmers, regulators and consumers can sit down at a table and 
     forge a mutually acceptable and responsible mandatory 
     labeling protocol free of hyperbole and judgment that simply 
     allows consumers to vote in the marketplace for the kind of 
     food system we want.
       Please contact your congressperson and tell them to stop 
     the DARK Act and vote against H.R. 1599.
                                  ____


            [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.''

  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I was pleased to hear the gentleman who 
preceded me in the well acknowledge climate change and say that GMOs 
are the solution.
  I do think climate change is a problem. I don't think GMOs are the 
solution.
  Let's go to some of the arguments we have just heard: This is what we 
have been doing for millennia, hybridization, you know, where you graft 
the plant onto another plant.
  I am not quite sure when the last time was when a flounder mated with 
a tomato plant, but we now have tomatoes that have injected into them

[[Page H5424]]

flounder genes in order to enhance production, or the last time an eel 
mated with a salmon. They are putting eel genes into genetically 
modified salmon--Frankenfish--so they will grow twice as fast as other 
fish, twice as fast.
  Now, they say: Don't worry. They won't get out. And, besides that, 
most of them are sterile. Yes. Right. Okay. So what happens when they 
do get out and they begin to cross-breed with real salmon as opposed to 
eel salmon or whatever these things are?
  This bill would prohibit any labeling. You catch a real salmon, it is 
a salmon. You present someone with a GMO eel salmon, it is a salmon. 
You can't distinguish. You don't have to disclose. So that is not 
exactly hybridization, folks.
  You know this thing about being politically motivated, nonscientific, 
and scare tactics because we want to have it disclosed that GMOs are 
contained in the product. Well, I didn't hear those arguments when they 
required red dye number two or cellulose or xanthan gum. Why not GMOs?
  Sixty-four countries require the labeling of products that contain 
GMOs, not the United States of America. Bastions of democracy like 
China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, require it for their consumers. But, no, 
we are not going to allow that in the United States of America.
  Proliferation of labels. Yes. That is happening at the State level. 
And that is states' rights, which Republicans normally are for, except 
when a State does something they don't like, and then they are against 
it.
  But there is a solution to that, my bill, which would require a 
uniform national label which just simply discloses ``contains GMOs.'' 
It won't cost any additional money, since they are having to change the 
nutritional labels anyway.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WELCH. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Now, we heard a lot about pesticides. This is great. 
Let's talk about Monsanto and glyphosate-resistant corn.
  They are using more pesticides today on cornfields than they did 
historically, more, and they had glyphosate-resistant corn.
  They dumped the glyphosate on the corn: Don't worry. There will never 
be a glyphosate-resistant weed. Oops. They were wrong. Weeds everywhere 
now taking over the cornfield.
  Let's change that up. We are now going to have 2,4-D--remember Agent 
Orange? Pretty darn close--resistant corn. They are going to dump 
thousands, millions, of tons of 2,4-D over this corn.
  That is the net result of this sort of forward movement that they are 
touting as helping us deal with pesticide and herbicide issues: Oh. 
Don't worry. There will never be a 2,4-D resistant weed. If there is, 
don't worry. They will get an even more toxic chemical.
  They are addicting farmers to their products and addicting farmers to 
buying more and more of their pesticides.
  We have now seen milkweed wiped out in the Midwest, causing a crisis 
with monarch butterflies, who are actually a pretty critical 
pollinator. Most people don't know that, apparently. And that is the 
result of all this glyphosate and the coming of 2,4-D.
  I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Clarke).
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, also known as ``the DARK 
Act.'' One of my concerns is that this bill blocks the FDA from 
creating a national mandatory GMO labeling system.
  The current voluntary labeling system is not providing consumers with 
the information they need because only 2 percent of the products on the 
shelves have voluntarily submitted to the non-GMO labeling process.
  It is apparent that mandatory labeling is sorely needed, such as the 
kind required by Mr. DeFazio, the gentleman from Oregon's bill, the 
Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act.
  In addition, what has happened to the outcry for states' rights from 
the other side of the aisle? This bill preempts States from passing 
their own GMO labeling laws.
  This would essentially invalidate the will of the people and, in so 
doing, limit a State's ability to respond to the individual needs of 
its constituents.
  There have been many discussions and conversations surrounding this 
bill. One such discussion has been extremely troubling, debasing, and 
scornful. Specifically, there are some who say that poor people don't 
care what is in their food, nor do they care what they eat.
  Let me be clear: I don't care whether you are wealthy or poor. All 
Americans deserve to know what is in their food. Poor people are, first 
and foremost, human beings. They are not marginal subordinates in a 
democratic civil society.
  Poor people deserve the same respect and consideration as the 
wealthy. Despite what some may think, poor people do care about what 
food they eat, and they should be able to choose what they put in their 
bodies.
  I will say it again. All Americans deserve to know what is in their 
food. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 1599, the DARK 
Act.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chair, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the 
Safe and Accurate Food Labeling measure before us.
  This legislation, I understand, creates a great deal of angst among 
various supporters and opponents. We have heard that. But it also 
creates a uniform, science-based labeling standard. I think that is a 
move forward.
  It also creates Federal regulations for the Food and Drug 
Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture to 
remain preeminent authorities in food safety and labeling, just as it 
has been for decades.
  Additionally, it creates a national GMO-free certification program so 
consumers who choose to buy non-GMO foods have the ability to do so 
without the higher prices or the misleading labeling.
  This legislation does not reject consumers' rights to choose. While 
the opponents of this measure wish it would do other things, it does 
not. I think it is a balanced attempt.
  Furthermore, the voters of California, as many of you may know, 
recently, in proposition 37, had an opportunity to put in GMO labeling. 
Mr. Chairman, 42 percent said ``yes,'' and 58 percent of the voters of 
California said ``no.''
  I urge we support this legislation.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
  I thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo), my colleague on the 
Energy and Commerce Committee. He is a good man. Sometimes he is 
misguided, but he likes Ben & Jerry's ice cream. I appreciate that. And 
it is GMO-free.
  But I do want to address seriously the arguments the gentleman has 
made because, number one, this is a serious issue. It is a serious 
issue, first of all, because this legislation puts handcuffs on all of 
our State legislatures from doing whatever it is they deem in the best 
interest of their people.

                              {time}  1215

  Secondly, it puts handcuffs on voters. Mr. Pompeo said that voters 
have rejected this. In some ballot initiatives, that is the case. He is 
right. Why pass a law that takes that power from the voters and invest 
it here?
  This is a very serious policy question where the United States House 
of Representatives is intruding into the efforts of States to represent 
the people that they serve.
  By the way, three States have passed laws by overwhelming margins. In 
Vermont, the Vermont Senate bipartisan body, it was a 26-2 vote; the 
Vermont House bipartisan body, it was 114-30 vote. In Connecticut, it 
was 143-3 in the House and 35-1 in the Senate. In Maine, it was 114-4, 
and it was unanimously passed in the Senate 35-0.
  What we are doing in the House of Representatives right now is saying 
to the Vermont legislature, saying to the Maine legislature, and saying 
to the Connecticut legislature: Drop dead. What you passed, we are 
taking away.

[[Page H5425]]

  I don't think that is right.
  I will make an acknowledgement. Sometimes, it is the right thing for 
the Federal Government or the Congress to preempt State action so that 
it can have a uniform, across-the-board standard. That is what the 
DeFazio bill does. It acknowledges that so you don't have this 
patchwork.
  This bill, with voluntary labeling, in effect, creates a patchwork. 
Does it mean that company A decides they do want to label and they 
write the label they want and company B writes another label or 
doesn't? What does that mean for consumers?
  First of all, in all likelihood, there will be no labels. Secondly, 
there will be the patchwork produced by this legislation that is what 
the critics of the State-by-State approach say they want to avoid.
  Next, there was an assertion by my friend from Texas, Mr. Conaway, 
that a label is a warning. I think that really goes to the heart of 
what the dispute here is. Is a label a warning?
  In fact, the proponents of the DeFazio bill and the opponents of this 
bill are not asserting that the purpose of the label is to suggest 
there is scientific evidence indicating GMOs cause health problems. 
What a label is, is information; and the consumer then decides. Your 
consumers and my consumers, they decide. Whatever their reason is, they 
have a right to decide to buy product A or B, depending on what is in 
it or what is not in it.
  What is the big fear about letting consumers know? A lot of the big 
advocates that are pushing this are, in fact, some of these 
manufacturers that create products that they sell to farmers, and Mr. 
DeFazio outlined that in his argument. They fear that the label will 
reduce the saleability of that product.
  Here is the irony: If what they are producing and selling is so good 
and so nutritious and so tasty and so yummy, why not let the consumer 
know what is in it? That would be something you would want to 
advertise.
  This really is a very profound decision by this Congress. Number one, 
it is telling States that have been taking initiative on the basis of 
their citizens' desires that they can't do it anymore. Number two, in 
the name of avoiding a patchwork set of regulations, it is creating the 
inevitability of a patchwork. Then, three, in a very basic way, it is 
telling American consumers that it is really none of their business 
what is in their product, no matter how much they really want to know 
what is in their product.
  I urge that we vote ``no'' and defeat this measure and stand for 
State rights and consumer rights to know.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  As I close, I would like to offer my thanks first to Mr. Welch for 
the respectful debate today and for the ice cream. I would like to 
thank my lead cosponsor, Mr. Butterfield, for his hard work all along 
the way; as well as being the chairman of the Congressional Black 
Caucus, he has leaned into this and really made us able to get where we 
are today
  I would like to thank Chairman Upton, Chairman Conaway, and Ranking 
Member Peterson for their support and effort in getting this 
legislation to the floor as well. I would like to thank all the staff 
on the Energy and Commerce and Agriculture Committees for their hard 
work, too.
  I would be remiss if I didn't thank Blake Hollander on my staff, who 
put in long hours making sure this commonsense bipartisan bill was 
ready for the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, it is really very simple. H.R. 1599 has two very simple 
goals. First, it is to ensure families in Kansas and across the country 
have access to nutritious and affordable food; and, second, it is to 
make sure that those who wish to avoid food products that contain GMOs 
will be able to do so, that they will not be denied the right to know.
  In place of a convoluted patchwork of loophole-filled State or local 
labeling laws, we will ensure that our food policy is science based and 
transparent to consumers.
  Let's be very clear. Consumers who wish to avoid foods containing 
GMOs are able to do so today, and they will be able to do so after this 
bill becomes law--except it is better now. There will now be a clear 
standard about what that term really means.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense, proconsumer, profarmer bill that 
brings clarity to food labeling and keeps affordable food for our 
constituents.
  I encourage all my colleagues to support H.R. 1599, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, on June 23, 2015, the House 
considered H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. It is my 
intention to vote against this legislation. For the past four decades I 
have fought tirelessly for one of the finest products in the world, 
wild Alaskan salmon. The multi-billion dollar seafood industry in 
Alaska is the largest private sector employer in my state. Yet the 
approval of a genetically engineered (GE) salmon, or ``Frankenfish'' as 
I call it, could put our thriving and iconic fishing sector in 
jeopardy.
   Frankenfish could pose a grave threat to our wild salmon stocks in 
Alaska, and the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) support for 
approving GE salmon is disturbing. Equally disturbing is the fact that, 
if approved, the FDA has said that it would not require GE salmon to be 
labeled.
   In today's global marketplace, a consumer's access to accurate 
ingredient information is paramount. Clear and accurate GE labeling 
requirements attempt to mitigate the risk of market confusion or 
rejection by countries that have no interest in purchasing the hybrid 
organism. Consumer confusion about what types of salmon or seafood are 
genetically engineered may deter shoppers from purchasing these 
products altogether. If GE salmon is approved despite opposition from 
Congress and nearly two million people who wrote in to the FDA, it 
should be clearly labeled to avoid the potential market rejection of 
all salmon.
   In an effort to ensure that Alaskan consumers have this essential 
information, Alaska enacted legislation in 2005 that requires the 
labeling of all products containing GE fish and shellfish. However, the 
so-called Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act (H.R. 1599), recently 
referred out of the House Agriculture Committee, would block states 
like Alaska from requiring mandatory labeling of GE fish while also 
curtailing FDA's ability to craft a true, national GE labeling system. 
Rather, its proponents would suggest that Alaskan fishermen should go 
through a costly non-GMO certification if they want consumers to know 
that their salmon is not genetically engineered. Why should all U.S. 
salmon fishermen have to prove their salmon are non-GMO when farmed GE 
salmon coming into the U.S. from other countries would not. It is 
insufficient for consumers and it is insufficient for Alaska's thriving 
fishing industry.
   For these reasons, I oppose H.R. 1599 in defense of states' rights 
to decide these important matters for themselves. All consumers should 
be able to see whether their salmon is Frankenfish or not.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this legislation, 
which would preempt the ability of states to require GMO labeling laws.
  Numerous studies have shown that Americans want to know what's in 
their food. As states respond to this trend, we should not restrict 
their ability to keep consumers informed about the food they eat. GMO 
labeling laws are widely supported by consumers in over 60 countries 
including China, Russia and the European Union. We should not deny 
states the ability to make this decision for their residents.
  While I understand the concerns about the potential for a patchwork 
of state labeling laws, companies, can, of course, voluntarily choose 
to provide GMO information on their labeling. In fact, many of those 
opposing this legislation provide information on GMO products in Europe 
and other countries.
  Mr. Chair, this bill was rushed through the Agriculture Committee and 
came too quickly to the House floor before we could have a serious 
discussion about GMO labeling and consumer rights. We must closely 
study the merits of the bill and find common ground between labeling 
and a consumer's right to know before we vote on this far-reaching 
legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I rise today to highlight an editorial that 
my good friend and colleague, Congresswoman Chellie Pingree of Maine 
and I recently wrote expressing our opposition to H.R. 1599, the Safe 
and Accurate Food Labeling Act. It appeared in the July 21, 2015 online 
edition of The Boston Globe.

                 [From the Boston Globe, July 21, 2015]

              Let Americans Decide for Themselves on GMOs

                 (By Jim McGovern and Chellie Pingree)

       America has a proud tradition of empowering consumers. You 
     can walk into any grocery store in the country, pick up a 
     product from the shelf, and immediately learn the calorie 
     count, the amount of protein per serving, and the full list 
     of ingredients.
       So it's alarming that Congress could soon pass a bill that 
     aims to keep consumers in the dark when it comes to foods 
     with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

[[Page H5426]]

       This week, the House of Representative will consider the 
     Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. Unfortunately, the bill 
     does nothing to support safe and accurate food labeling. 
     Instead, it protects the status quo by preventing states from 
     requiring labels on foods containing GMO ingredients and 
     locks in the current and inadequate voluntary GMO labeling 
     system.
       As more of the foods we eat contain GMOs, consumers 
     naturally want to know which foods contain them. All they are 
     asking for are the facts. This bill ignores that.
       Congress needs to pass a law that puts consumers first by 
     requiring mandatory GMO labeling across the country, 
     eliminating confusion and establishing one national standard.
       Polls consistently show that there is overwhelming support 
     for clearly labeling foods that have been genetically 
     modified or contain GMO ingredients. In a 2012 survey by the 
     Mellman Group, 89 percent were in favor of labeling with 77 
     percent saying they ``strongly'' prefer GMO labeling. That 
     same survey also showed strong bipartisan support for GMO 
     labeling with huge majorities of Democrats (85 percent), 
     independents (93 percent), and Republicans (88 percent) all 
     in favor.
       While Congress has been stuck in neutral, states have 
     stepped up and passed laws that give the power back to 
     consumers. In 2014, Vermont became the first state to require 
     mandatory GMO labeling. Connecticut and Maine have both 
     passed laws to require labeling and more than a dozen other 
     states are considering similar oversight, including 
     Massachusetts. What's more, 64 other countries have GMO 
     labeling, including Brazil whose consumption patterns are 
     similar to those in the United States.
       Supporters of the bill claim that GMO labeling will 
     increase food prices. While plenty of things impact the 
     prices we pay at the grocery store--including transportation 
     costs and ingredient costs--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 prices.
       Food companies change their labels all the time to make new 
     claims, and all food companies will soon have to change their 
     labels to make important changes to the Nutrition Fact Panel. 
     Adding a few words to the back of the food package about 
     genetic engineering will not have any impact of the cost of 
     making food.
       Opponents of updating food labeling made the same bogus 
     arguments when they fought nutrition labeling in the 1980s. 
     Back then, they claimed that disclosing the presence of 
     calories, salt, fat, and sugar would require costly 
     reformulations. But those much more significant changes to 
     foods labels--adding the Nutrition Facts Panel and including 
     more information about ingredients--didn't change the price 
     of food at all.
       Americans want more information, not less. What we need is 
     one law that makes GMO labeling mandatory across the country 
     and establishes a single national standard that eliminates 
     confusion and puts consumers in charge.
       This debate isn't about the safety of GMOs. It's about 
     consumers' right to know what's in the food they put on their 
     tables. We ought to give them that right.

  Mr. BLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my strong support of the 
bipartisan Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015. I want to 
recognize the hard work my colleague of Mr. Pompeo, as well as the 
efforts of both the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee 
on Agriculture into this legislation.
  As a representative from the great State of Iowa, I am extremely 
sensitive and aware of the issues facing agriculture--from farm to 
fork--and I am aware of the challenges my constituents face while 
producing the delicious and nutritious food the rest of us consume. On 
an annual basis, Iowa grows $12B worth of corn and $5.7B worth of 
soybeans, of which 95% and 97%, respectively, are Genetically Modified 
Organisms--or GMOs. Recently, states began to enact laws that required 
labeling of these GMO products, often with exemptions for local 
products, would increase compliance costs for producers and create 
confusion for consumers.
  This bill addresses the current patchwork of state biotechnology 
labeling requirements--compliance with which would be a daunting task 
for the producers in my district that distribute food throughout the 
United States--by providing a mechanism for uniform labeling 
requirements. No one benefits--not farmers, nor food manufacturers and 
processors, nor retailers, and most of all, not consumers--from a 
confusing collection of state laws--each different, with different 
requirements--creating great confusion among consumers in the 
marketplace.
  It does so by establishing a voluntary non-GMO labeling program at 
USDA modeled after the highly successful National Organic Program. 
Today, when consumers go into a grocery store, they may see a wide 
variety of products that may have a non-GMO label on it. However, there 
isn't a standard that defines what a non-GMO product is or is not. The 
language of the bill directs the USDA to establish standards and 
certification process for producers in order to put a non-GMO label on 
their products.
  Mr. Chair, a number of constituents along with some of my colleagues, 
are advocating for mandatory labeling for GMO products because 
consumers have a right to know what is in their food. I agree--
consumers have a right to know--and the standards set by the USDA under 
this legislation will provide consumers with all the information 
necessary to make informed decisions and choices on their grocery 
stores purchases. This bill protects and enhances consumer choice by 
establishing a voluntary non-GMO labeling program--without costing them 
an extra $500 a year per family that economists at Cornell University 
estimate mandatory labeling would.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 1599--over 470 
agricultural and food organizations that represent the entire food 
chain have already done so. The legislation enhances consumer choice, 
clears up confusion in the marketplace, and enhances consumer 
confidence in the food we eat.
  Vote ``Yes'' on H.R. 1599.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Agriculture, printed in the bill, it shall be in order 
to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
5-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 House Report 114-216. That amendment in the nature 
of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                               H.R. 1599

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Safe and 
     Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Savings clause.

      TITLE I--FOOD SAFETY AFFIRMATION FOR CERTAIN PLANT PRODUCTS

                Subtitle A--Food and Drug Administration

Sec. 101. Consultation process.

                 Subtitle B--Department of Agriculture

Sec. 111. Regulation.
Sec. 112. Regulations.
Sec. 113. Preemption.
Sec. 114. Rule of construction.
Sec. 115. Implementation report.

              TITLE II--GENETIC ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION

Sec. 201. Genetic engineering certification.
Sec. 202. Regulations.
Sec. 203. Preemption.
Sec. 204. Applicability.

                        TITLE III--NATURAL FOODS

Sec. 301. Labeling of natural foods.
Sec. 302. Regulations.
Sec. 303. Preemption.
Sec. 304. Effective date.

     SEC. 2. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       Nothing in this Act (or the amendments made by this Act) is 
     intended to alter or affect the authorities or regulatory 
     programs, policies, and procedures otherwise available to, or 
     the definitions used by, the Food and Drug Administration 
     under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 
     et seq.) or the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
     under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), to 
     ensure the safety of the food supply and the protection of 
     plant health.

      TITLE I--FOOD SAFETY AFFIRMATION FOR CERTAIN PLANT PRODUCTS

                Subtitle A--Food and Drug Administration

     SEC. 101. CONSULTATION PROCESS.

       Chapter IV of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is 
     amended by inserting after section 423 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 
     350l) the following:

     ``SEC. 424. FOOD DERIVED FROM NEW PLANT VARIETIES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall continue to 
     administer the consultation process established under the 
     Food and Drug Administration's policy statement entitled 
     `Statement of Policy: Food Derived from New Plant Varieties' 
     published in the Federal Register on May 29, 1992 (57 Fed. 
     Reg. 22,984).
       ``(b) Determination of Material Difference Between Food 
     From Genetically Engineered Plants and Comparable Foods.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the use 
     of genetic engineering does not, by itself, constitute 
     information that is material for purposes of determining 
     whether there is a difference between a food produced from, 
     containing, or consisting of a genetically engineered plant 
     and a comparable food.
       ``(2) Labeling required.--The Secretary may require that 
     the labeling of a food produced from, containing, or 
     consisting of a genetically engineered plant contain a 
     statement to adequately inform consumers of a difference 
     between the food so produced and its comparable food if the 
     Secretary determines that--
       ``(A) there is a material difference in the functional, 
     nutritional, or compositional characteristics, allergenicity, 
     or other attributes between

[[Page H5427]]

     the food so produced and its comparable food; and
       ``(B) the disclosure of such material difference is 
     necessary to protect public health and safety or to prevent 
     the label or labeling of the food so produced from being 
     false or misleading in any particular.''.

                 Subtitle B--Department of Agriculture

     SEC. 111. REGULATION.

       The Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subtitle:

   ``Subtitle F--Coordination of Food Safety and Agriculture Programs

     ``SEC. 461. NOTIFICATION RELATING TO CERTAIN GENETICALLY 
                   ENGINEERED PLANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), it shall be 
     unlawful to sell or offer for sale in interstate commerce a 
     nonregulated genetically engineered plant for use or 
     application in food or a food produced from, containing, or 
     consisting of a nonregulated genetically engineered plant 
     unless--
       ``(1)(A) the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     notified the entity seeking evaluation of a food produced 
     from, containing, or consisting of the genetically engineered 
     plant in writing that the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, in evaluating the food from the genetically 
     engineered plant through the consultation process referred to 
     in section 424(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
     Act, has no objections to the entity's determination that 
     food produced from, containing, or consisting of the 
     genetically engineered plant that is the subject of the 
     notification is safe for use by humans or animals, as 
     applicable, and lawful under the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act, and
       ``(B) the entity seeking evaluation of a food produced 
     from, containing, or consisting of the genetically engineered 
     plant submits to the Secretary of Agriculture the 
     notification of the finding of the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services under subparagraph (A); or
       ``(2) before the date of the enactment of the Safe and 
     Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015, the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services--
       ``(A) considered the consultation process referred to in 
     section 424(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     with respect to such genetically engineered plant to be 
     complete;
       ``(B) notified the consulting party in writing that all 
     questions with respect to the safety of food produced from, 
     containing, or consisting of the genetically engineered plant 
     have been resolved; and
       ``(C) published such notification on the public Internet 
     website of the Food and Drug Administration.
       ``(b) Exceptions.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), this 
     section does not apply with respect to the sale or offering 
     for sale in interstate commerce of a genetically engineered 
     plant--
       ``(1) for the purpose of research or development testing, 
     including--
       ``(A) testing conducted to generate data and information 
     that could be used in a submission to the Secretary under 
     this title or other regulatory submission; or
       ``(B) multiplication of seed or hybrid and variety 
     development conducted before submitting a notification under 
     subsection (a)(1)(B);
       ``(2) solely because a processing aid or enzyme produced 
     from the genetically engineered plant is intended to be used 
     to produce food; or
       ``(3) solely because the genetically engineered plant is 
     used as a nutrient source for microorganisms.
       ``(c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in subsection (b)(1) 
     may be construed as authorizing the sale or offering for sale 
     in interstate commerce of a nonregulated genetically 
     engineered plant for use or application in food or a food 
     produced from, containing, or consisting of a nonregulated 
     genetically engineered plant.
       ``(d) Public Disclosure.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     of Agriculture shall publish on the public Internet website 
     of the Department of Agriculture, and update as necessary, a 
     registry that includes--
       ``(A) a list of each nonregulated genetically engineered 
     plant intended for a use or application in food that may be 
     sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce, in 
     accordance with subsection (a);
       ``(B) the petitions submitted to, and determinations made 
     by, the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to such a 
     plant; and
       ``(C) the notifications of findings issued by the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services with respect to such a plant or 
     the use or application of such a plant in food.
       ``(2) Trade secrets and confidential information.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (1), nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to alter the protections offered by laws, 
     regulations, and policies governing disclosure of 
     confidential commercial or trade secret information, and any 
     other information exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 
     552(b) of title 5, United States Code, as such provisions 
     would be applied to the documents and information referred to 
     in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (1).
       ``(e) Imported Food.--In the case of food imported into the 
     United States that is food produced from, containing, or 
     consisting of a plant that meets the definition of a 
     nonregulated genetically engineered plant or a plant that, if 
     sold in interstate commerce, would be subject to regulation 
     under part 340 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations (or 
     any successor regulations), the provisions of this section 
     shall apply to such food in the same manner and to the same 
     extent as such provisions apply to a food that is not so 
     imported.

     ``SEC. 462. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subtitle:
       ``(1) Food.--The term `food' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 201(f) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(f)).
       ``(2) Nonregulated genetically engineered plant.--The term 
     `nonregulated genetically engineered plant' means a 
     genetically engineered plant--
       ``(A) for which the Secretary of Agriculture has approved a 
     petition under section 340.6 of title 7, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (or any successor regulations), for a 
     determination that the genetically engineered plant should 
     not be regulated under this Act; or
       ``(B) that--
       ``(i) is not subject to regulation as a plant pest under 
     this Act;
       ``(ii) contains genetic material from a different species; 
     and
       ``(iii) has been modified through in vitro recombinant 
     deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques.''.

     SEC. 112. REGULATIONS.

       Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate 
     interim final regulations to carry out the amendments made by 
     section 111.

     SEC. 113. PREEMPTION.

       Regardless of whether regulations have been promulgated 
     under section 112, beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, no State or political subdivision of a State may 
     directly or indirectly establish under any authority or 
     continue in effect as to any food in interstate commerce any 
     requirement with respect to the sale or offering for sale in 
     interstate commerce of a genetically engineered plant for use 
     or application in food that is not identical to the 
     requirement of section 461 of the Plant Protection Act (as 
     added by section 111 of this Act).

     SEC. 114. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in the amendments made by this subtitle is intended 
     to alter or affect the ability of--
       (1) the Secretary of Health and Human Services to take 
     enforcement actions with respect to a violation of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), 
     including section 301 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 331); or
       (2) the Secretary of Agriculture to take enforcement 
     actions with respect to a violation of the Plant Protection 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), including section 411 of such 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 7711).

     SEC. 115. IMPLEMENTATION REPORT.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall jointly submit 
     to Congress a report evaluating the progress made in the 
     implementation of subtitle F of the Plant Protection Act, as 
     added by section 111. Such report shall include--
       (1) an analysis of plants over which regulatory oversight 
     under such subtitle is required;
       (2) an analysis of the extent to which the provisions of 
     such subtitle establish an appropriate scope of regulatory 
     oversight for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
     and the Food and Drug Administration, including their 
     oversight of public research programs; and
       (3) any potential changes to the Plant Protection Act that 
     would better facilitate implementation of a coordinated, 
     predictable, and efficient science-based regulatory process.
       (b) Coordination With Other Efforts To Modernize 
     Regulation.--The report under subsection (a) shall be 
     prepared, to the greatest extent practicable, in accordance 
     with the process described in the memorandum issued by the 
     Executive Office of the President on July 2, 2015, entitled 
     ``Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology 
     Products'', including the directive specified in such 
     memorandum to update the ``Coordinated Framework for 
     Regulation of Biotechnology'' published by the Executive 
     Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology 
     Policy, in the Federal Register on June 26, 1986 (51 Fed.Reg. 
     23302).

              TITLE II--GENETIC ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION

     SEC. 201. GENETIC ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION.

       The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subtitle:

            ``Subtitle E--Genetic Engineering Certification

     ``SEC. 291. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subtitle:
       ``(1) The term `certifying agent' means the chief executive 
     officer of a State or, in the case of a State that provides 
     for the statewide election of an official to be responsible 
     solely for the administration of the agricultural operations 
     of the State, such official, and any person (including a 
     private entity) who is accredited by the Secretary as a 
     certifying agent for the purpose of certifying a covered 
     product as a product, the labeling of which may indicate 
     whether the product is produced with or without the use of 
     genetic engineering.
       ``(2) The term `covered product' means--
       ``(A) an agricultural product, whether raw or processed 
     (including any product derived from livestock that is 
     marketed in the United States for consumption by humans or 
     other animals);
       ``(B) any other food (as defined in section 201 of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) not derived from an 
     agricultural product; and
       ``(C) seed or other propagative material.
       ``(3) The term `genetically engineered plant' refers to a 
     plant or plant product (as those terms are defined in section 
     403 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7702)), if--
       ``(A) it contains genetic material that has been modified 
     through in vitro recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) 
     techniques; and
       ``(B) the modification could not otherwise be obtained 
     using conventional breeding techniques.
       ``(4) The term  `comparable food' means, with respect to a 
     covered product produced from, containing, or consisting of a 
     genetically engineered plant--
       ``(A) the parental variety of the plant;

[[Page H5428]]

       ``(B) another commonly consumed variety of the plant; or
       ``(C) a commonly consumed covered product with properties 
     comparable to the covered product produced from, containing, 
     or consisting of the genetically engineered plant.
       ``(5) The term `handle' means to sell, process or package 
     covered products.
       ``(6) The term `producer' means a person who engages in the 
     business of growing or producing covered products.
       ``(7) The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, acting through the Agricultural Marketing 
     Service.

     ``SEC. 291A. NATIONAL GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD 
                   CERTIFICATION PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     voluntary genetically engineered food certification program 
     for covered products with respect to the use of genetic 
     engineering in the production of such products, as provided 
     for in this subtitle. The Secretary shall establish the 
     requirements and procedures as the Secretary determines are 
     necessary to carry out such program.
       ``(b) Consultation.--In developing the program under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with such other 
     parties as are necessary to develop such program to ensure 
     that producers or handlers seeking to make claims under 
     section 291B or 291C are certified to make such claims.
       ``(c) Certification.--The Secretary shall implement the 
     program established under subsection (a) through certifying 
     agents. Such certifying agents may certify that covered 
     products were or were not produced with the use of genetic 
     engineering or a genetically engineered plant, in accordance 
     with this subtitle.
       ``(d) Seal.--The Secretary shall establish a seal to 
     identify covered products in interstate commerce using 
     terminology the Secretary considers appropriate for covered 
     products certified under this title, including terminology 
     commonly used in interstate commerce or established by the 
     Secretary in regulations.

     ``SEC. 291B. NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR LABELING NONGENETICALLY 
                   ENGINEERED FOOD.

       ``(a) In General.--To be sold or labeled as a covered 
     product produced without the use of genetic engineering--
       ``(1) the covered product shall--
       ``(A) be subject to supply chain process controls that 
     address--
       ``(i) the producer planting seed that is not genetically 
     engineered;
       ``(ii) the producer keeping the crop separated during 
     growth, harvesting, storage, and transportation; and
       ``(iii) persons in direct contact with such crop or 
     products derived from such crop during transportation, 
     storage, or processing keeping the product separated from 
     other products that are or are derived from genetically 
     engineered plants; and
       ``(B) be produced and handled in compliance with a 
     nongenetically engineered food plan developed and approved in 
     accordance with subsection (c);
       ``(2) in the case of a covered product derived from 
     livestock that is marketed in the United States for human 
     consumption, the covered product and the livestock, products 
     consumed by such livestock, and products used in processing 
     the products consumed by such livestock shall be produced 
     without the use of products derived from genetic engineering; 
     and
       ``(3) labeling or advertising material on, or in 
     conjunction with, such covered product shall not suggest 
     either expressly or by implication that covered products 
     developed without the use of genetic engineering are safer or 
     of higher quality than covered products produced from, 
     containing, or consisting of a genetically engineered plant.
       ``(b) Exceptions.--A covered product shall not be 
     considered as not meeting the criteria specified in 
     subsection (a) solely because the covered product--
       ``(1) is manufactured or processed using a genetically 
     engineered microorganism or a processing aid or enzyme;
       ``(2) is derived from microorganisms that consumed a 
     nutrient source produced from, containing, or consisting of a 
     genetically engineered plant; or
       ``(3) is an approved substance on the National List 
     established under section 2118 of the Organic Foods 
     Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6517).
       ``(c) Nongenetically Engineered Food Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--A producer or handler seeking 
     certification under this section shall submit a 
     nongenetically engineered food plan to the certifying agent 
     and such plan shall be reviewed by the certifying agent who 
     shall determine if such plan meets the requirements of this 
     section.
       ``(2) Contents.--A nongenetically engineered food plan 
     shall contain a description of--
       ``(A) the procedures that will be followed to assure 
     compliance with this section;
       ``(B) a description of the monitoring records that will be 
     maintained; and
       ``(C) any corrective actions that will be implemented in 
     the event there is a deviation from the plan.
       ``(3) Availability.--The nongenetically engineered food 
     plan and the records maintained under the plan shall be 
     available for review and copying by the Secretary or a 
     certifying agent.
       ``(d) Treatment of Livestock.--In the case of a covered 
     product derived from livestock that is marketed in the United 
     States for human consumption, the covered product shall not 
     be considered to be genetically engineered solely because the 
     livestock consumed feed produced from containing, or 
     consisting of a genetically engineered plant.''.

     ``SEC. 291C. NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR LABELING GENETICALLY 
                   ENGINEERED FOOD.

       ``(a) In General.--To be sold or labeled as a covered 
     product produced with the use of genetic engineering--
       ``(1) the covered product shall be produced and handled in 
     compliance with a genetically engineered food plan developed 
     and approved in accordance with subsection (b); and
       ``(2) the labeling of or advertising material on, or in 
     conjunction with, such covered product shall--
       ``(A) not expressly or impliedly claim that a covered 
     product developed with the use of genetic engineering is 
     safer or of higher quality solely because the covered product 
     is a product developed with the use of genetic engineering;
       ``(B) not make any claims that are false or misleading; and
       ``(C) contain such information as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(b) Genetically Engineered Food Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--A producer or handler seeking 
     certification under this section shall submit a genetically 
     engineered food plan to the certifying agent and such plan 
     shall be reviewed by the certifying agent who shall determine 
     if such plan meets the requirements of this section.
       ``(2) Contents.--A genetically engineered food plan shall 
     contain a description of--
       ``(A) the procedures that will be followed to assure 
     compliance with this section;
       ``(B) a description of the monitoring records that will be 
     maintained; and
       ``(C) any corrective actions that will be implemented in 
     the event there is a deviation from the plan.
       ``(3) Availability.--The genetically engineered food plan 
     and the records maintained under the plan shall be available 
     for review and copying by the Secretary or a certifying 
     agent.
       ``(c) Prohibition Against Restricting Certain 
     Disclosures.--With respect to a covered product that 
     otherwise meets the criteria specified in subsection (a), the 
     Secretary may not prevent a person--
       ``(1) from disclosing voluntarily on the labeling of such a 
     covered product developed with the use of genetic engineering 
     the manner in which the product has been modified to express 
     traits or characteristics that differ from its comparable 
     food; or
       ``(2) from disclosing in advertisements, on the Internet, 
     in response to consumer inquiries, or on other 
     communications, other than in the labeling, that a covered 
     product was developed with the use of genetic engineering.

     ``SEC. 291D. IMPORTED PRODUCTS.

       ``Imported covered products may be sold or labeled as 
     produced with or without the use of genetic engineering if 
     the Secretary determines that such products have been 
     produced and handled under a genetic engineering 
     certification program that provides safeguards and guidelines 
     governing the production and handling of such products that 
     are at least equivalent to the requirements of this subtitle.

     ``SEC. 291E. ACCREDITATION PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     implement a program to accredit a governing State official, 
     and any private person, that meets the requirements of this 
     section as a certifying agent for the purpose of certifying a 
     covered product as having been produced with or without the 
     use of genetic engineering or a genetically engineered plant, 
     in accordance with this subtitle.
       ``(b) Requirements.--To be accredited as a certifying agent 
     under this section, a governing State official or private 
     person shall--
       ``(1) prepare and submit to the Secretary an application 
     for such accreditation;
       ``(2) have sufficient expertise in agricultural production 
     and handling techniques as determined by the Secretary; and
       ``(3) comply with the requirements of this section.
       ``(c) Duration of Accreditation.--An accreditation made 
     under this section shall be for a period of not to exceed 5 
     years, as determined appropriate by the Secretary, and may be 
     renewed.
       ``(d) Coordination With Existing Organic Program 
     Accreditation.--A governing State official or private person 
     who is accredited to certify a farm or handling operation as 
     a certified organic farm or handling operation pursuant to 
     section 2115 of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 6415) (and such accreditation is in effect) shall be 
     deemed to be accredited to certify covered products under 
     this subtitle.

     ``SEC. 291F. RECORDKEEPING, INVESTIGATIONS, AND ENFORCEMENT.

       ``(a) Recordkeeping.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     title, each person who sells, labels, or represents any 
     covered product as having been produced with or without the 
     use of genetic engineering or a genetically engineered plant 
     shall--
       ``(A) maintain records in a manner prescribed by the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(B) make available to the Secretary, on request by the 
     Secretary, all records associated with the covered product.
       ``(2) Certifying agents.--
       ``(A) In general.--A certifying agent shall--
       ``(i) maintain all records concerning the activities of the 
     certifying agent with respect to the certification of covered 
     products under this subtitle in a manner prescribed by the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(ii) make available to the Secretary, on request by the 
     Secretary, all records associated with such activities.
       ``(B) Transference of records.--If a private person that 
     was certified under this subtitle is dissolved or loses 
     accreditation, all records and copies of records concerning 
     the activities of the person under this subtitle shall be 
     transferred to the Secretary.

[[Page H5429]]

       ``(b) Investigations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may take such 
     investigative actions as the Secretary considers to be 
     necessary--
       ``(A) to verify the accuracy of any information reported or 
     made available under this subtitle; and
       ``(B) to determine whether a person covered by this 
     subtitle has committed a violation of any provision of this 
     subtitle, including an order or regulation promulgated by the 
     Secretary pursuant to this subtitle.
       ``(2) Specific investigative powers.--In carrying out this 
     subtitle, the Secretary may--
       ``(A) administer oaths and affirmations;
       ``(B) subpoena witnesses;
       ``(C) compel attendance of witnesses;
       ``(D) take evidence; and
       ``(E) require the production of any records required to be 
     maintained under this subtitle that are relevant to an 
     investigation.
       ``(c) Violations of Subtitle.--
       ``(1) Failure to provide information.--Any person covered 
     by this subtitle who, after notice and an opportunity to be 
     heard, has been found by the Secretary to have failed or 
     refused to provide accurate information (including a delay in 
     the timely delivery of such information) required by the 
     Secretary under this subtitle, shall be assessed a civil 
     penalty of not more than $10,000.
       ``(2) Misuse of label.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any person who, after notice and an 
     opportunity to be heard, is found by the Secretary to have 
     knowingly sold or labeled any covered product as having been 
     produced with or without the use of genetic engineering or a 
     genetically engineered plant, except in accordance with this 
     subtitle, shall be assessed to a civil penalty of not more 
     than $10,000.
       ``(B) Continuing violation.--Each day during which a 
     violation described in subparagraph (A) occurs shall be 
     considered to be a separate violation.
       ``(3) Ineligibility.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C), 
     any person that carries out an activity described in 
     subparagraph (B), after notice and an opportunity to be 
     heard, shall not be eligible, for the 5-year period beginning 
     on the date of the occurrence, to receive a certification 
     under this subtitle with respect to any covered product.
       ``(B) Description of activities.--An activity referred to 
     in subparagraph (A) is--
       ``(i) making a false statement;
       ``(ii) a violation described in paragraph (2)(A);
       ``(iii) attempting to have a label indicating that a 
     covered product has been produced with or without the use of 
     genetic engineering or a genetically engineered plant affixed 
     to a covered product that a person knows, or should have 
     reason to know, to have been produced in a manner that is not 
     in accordance with this subtitle; or
       ``(iv) otherwise violating the purposes of the genetically 
     engineered food certification program established under 
     section 291A, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(C) Waiver.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary may modify or waive a period of ineligibility under 
     this paragraph if the Secretary determines that the 
     modification or waiver is in the best interests of the 
     genetically engineered food certification program established 
     under section 291A.
       ``(4) Reporting of violations.--A certifying agent shall 
     immediately report any violation of this subtitle to the 
     Secretary.
       ``(5) Cease-and-desist orders.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may, after providing 
     notice and an opportunity to be heard, issue an order, 
     require any person who the Secretary reasonably believes is 
     selling or labeling a covered product in violation of this 
     subtitle to cease and desist from selling or labeling such 
     covered product as having been produced with or without the 
     use of genetic engineering or a genetically engineered plant.
       ``(B) Final and conclusive.--The order of the Secretary 
     imposing a cease-and-desist order under this paragraph shall 
     be final and conclusive unless the affected person files an 
     appeal from the Secretary's order with the appropriate 
     district court of the United States not later than 30 days 
     after the date of the issuance of the order.
       ``(6) Violations by certifying agent.--A certifying agent 
     that is a private person that violates the provisions of this 
     subtitle or falsely or negligently certifies any covered 
     product that does not meet the terms and conditions of the 
     genetically engineered food certification program established 
     under section 291A, as determined by the Secretary, shall, 
     after notice and an opportunity to be heard--
       ``(A) lose accreditation as a certifying agent under this 
     subtitle; and
       ``(B) be ineligible to be accredited as a certifying agent 
     under this subtitle for a period of not less than 3 years, 
     beginning on the date of the determination.
       ``(7) Suspension.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may, after first providing 
     the certifying agent notice and an opportunity to be heard, 
     suspend the accreditation of the certifying agent for a 
     period specified in subparagraph (B) for a violation of this 
     subtitle.
       ``(B) Period of suspension.--The period of a suspension 
     under subparagraph (A) shall terminate on the date the 
     Secretary makes a final determination with respect to the 
     violation that is the subject of the suspension.
       ``(8) Enforcement by attorney general.--On request of the 
     Secretary, the Attorney General may bring a civil action 
     against a person in a district court of the United States to 
     enforce this subtitle or a requirement or regulation 
     prescribed, or an order issued, under this subtitle. The 
     action may be brought in the judicial district in which the 
     person does business or in which the violation occurred.

     ``SEC. 291G. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS; FEES.

       ``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to establish the genetically 
     engineered food certification program under section 291A, 
     $2,000,000, to remain available until expended.
       ``(b) Fees.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon establishment of the genetically 
     engineered food certification program under section 291A, the 
     Secretary shall establish by notice, charge, and collect fees 
     to cover the estimated costs to the Secretary of carrying out 
     this subtitle.
       ``(2) Availability.--Fees collected under paragraph (1) 
     shall be deposited into a fund in the Treasury of the United 
     States and shall remain available until expended, subject to 
     appropriation, to carry out this subtitle.''.

     SEC. 202. REGULATIONS.

       In promulgating regulations to carry out the amendments 
     made by section 201, the Secretary of Agriculture shall--
       (1) provide a process to account for certified 
     nongenetically engineered covered products containing 
     material from genetically engineered plants due to the 
     inadvertent presence of such material;
       (2) to the greatest extent practicable, establish 
     consistency between the certification programs established 
     under subtitle E of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 
     (as added by section 201 of this Act), the organic 
     certification program established under the Organic Foods 
     Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.), and other 
     voluntary labeling programs administered by the Secretary;
       (3) with respect to regulations for covered products 
     intended for consumption by non-food animals, take into 
     account the inherent differences between food intended for 
     animal and human consumption, including the essential 
     vitamins, minerals, and micronutrients required to be added 
     to animal food to formulate a complete and balanced diet; and
       (4) provide a process for requesting and granting 
     exemptions from the requirements of subtitle E of the 
     Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (as added by section 201 
     of this Act) under conditions established by the Secretary.

     SEC. 203. EFFECTIVE DATE; PREEMPTION.

       (a) Effective Date.--Regardless of whether regulations have 
     been promulgated under section 202 of this Act, the 
     amendments made by section 201 shall take effect beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Prohibitions Against Mandatory Labeling of Food 
     Developed Using Genetic Engineering.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), no State or 
     political subdivision of a State may directly or indirectly 
     establish under any authority or continue in effect as to any 
     covered product (as defined in section 291 of the 
     Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as added by section 201 
     of this Act) in interstate commerce, any requirement for the 
     labeling of a covered product indicating the product as 
     having been produced from, containing, or consisting of a 
     genetically engineered plant, including any requirements for 
     claims that a covered product is or contains an ingredient 
     that was produced from, contains, or consists of a 
     genetically engineered plant.
       (2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a State (or 
     a political subdivision thereof) may establish either of the 
     following voluntary programs for the regulation of claims 
     described in such paragraph:
       (A) A program that relates to voluntary claims to which 
     paragraph (1) of section 204(a) of this Act applies.
       (B) A program that--
       (i) is voluntary;
       (ii) is accredited by the Secretary pursuant to section 
     291E of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (as added by 
     section 201 of this Act); and
       (iii) establishes standards that are identical to the 
     standards established under section 291B or 291C of the 
     Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as applicable (as added 
     by section 201 of this Act).
       (c) Rule of Construction.--For the sole purpose of 
     subsection (b)(1), a covered product derived from livestock 
     that consumed genetically engineered plants shall be deemed 
     as having been produced from, containing, or consisting of a 
     genetically engineered plant.

     SEC. 204. APPLICABILITY.

       (a) Existing Claims.--A voluntary claim made with respect 
     to whether a covered product (as defined in section 291 of 
     the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as added by section 
     201 of this Act) was produced with or without the use of 
     genetic engineering or genetically engineered plants before 
     the date of the enactment of this Act--
       (1) may be made for such a product during the 36-month 
     period that begins on the date of the enactment of this Act; 
     and
       (2) after the expiration of such 36-month period, may be 
     made so long as the labels associated with such a claim meet 
     the standards specified in section 291B or 291C of the 
     Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as applicable (as added 
     by section 201 of this Act).
       (b) Organic Certification.--In the case of a covered 
     product (as defined in section 291 of the Agricultural 
     Marketing Act of 1946, as added by section 201 of this Act) 
     produced by a farm or handling operation that is certified as 
     an organic farm or handling operation under the Organic Foods 
     Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.), such product 
     is deemed to be certified as a product produced without the 
     use of genetic engineering under the genetically engineered 
     food certification program established under section 291A of 
     the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (as added by section 
     201 of this Act).

[[Page H5430]]

                        TITLE III--NATURAL FOODS

     SEC. 301. LABELING OF NATURAL FOODS.

       Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 343) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(z)(1) If its labeling contains an express or implied 
     claim that the food is `natural' unless the claim is made in 
     accordance with subparagraph (2).
       ``(2) A claim described in subparagraph (1) may be made 
     only if the claim uses terms that have been defined by, and 
     the food meets the requirements that have been established 
     in, regulations promulgated to carry out this paragraph.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding subparagraph (2), prior to the 
     finalization of regulations to carry out this paragraph, the 
     use of any claim that a food is `natural' shall be allowed if 
     consistent with the Secretary's existing policy for such 
     claims.
       ``(4) In promulgating regulations to carry out this 
     paragraph, the Secretary shall differentiate between food for 
     human consumption and food intended for consumption by 
     animals other than humans.
       ``(5) For purposes of subparagraph (1), a natural claim 
     includes the use of--
       ``(A) the terms `natural', `100% natural', `naturally 
     grown', `all natural', and `made with natural ingredients'; 
     and
       ``(B) any other terms specified by the Secretary.''.

     SEC. 302. REGULATIONS.

       (a) Proposed Regulations.--Not later than 18 months after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services shall issue proposed regulations to 
     implement section 403(z) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act, as added by section 301 of this Act.
       (b) Final Regulations.--Not later than 30 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall issue final regulations to implement 
     such section 403(z).

     SEC. 303. PREEMPTION.

       Section 403A(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 343-1(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting 
     a comma; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
       ``(6) any requirement for the labeling of food of the type 
     required by section 403(z) that is not identical to the 
     requirement of such section.''.

     SEC. 304. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The labeling requirements of section 403(z) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as added by section 301 of this 
     Act, shall take effect on the effective date of final 
     regulations promulgated under section 302(b) of this Act. The 
     provisions of section 403A(a)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act, as added by section 303 of this Act, take 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part B of House 
Report 114-216. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, 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.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 114-216.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, after line 5, insert the following:
       ``(3) Labeling of products that are required to be labeled 
     abroad.--
       ``(A) Requirement.--The Secretary shall require that food 
     produced from, containing, or consisting of a genetically 
     engineered plant and intended for sale in interstate commerce 
     be labeled as such if--
       ``(i) the person producing or manufacturing the food, or 
     any affiliate thereof, produces or manufactures an equivalent 
     food intended for consumption in a foreign country; and
       ``(ii) the person or affiliate is required by such foreign 
     country to indicate in the labeling of such food that it is 
     produced from, contains, or consists of a genetically 
     engineered plant.
       ``(B) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term `affiliate' 
     means any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under 
     common control with another entity.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 369, the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, there was a time when Monsanto supported 
labeling. Of course, 64 countries have adopted labeling, including the 
United Kingdom.
  Here is what Monsanto said back then: Monsanto fully supports U.K. 
food manufacturers and retailers in their introduction to these labels. 
We believe you should be aware of all the facts before making a 
purchase. We encourage you to look out for these labels.
  That was then; this is now. Now, Monsanto and Monsanto's allies say 
such labeling is impossible, impractical, and unnecessary. There was a 
time when Monsanto was proud of their genetically modified organisms. 
Why not now?
  We have heard all of these arguments, some of which aren't exactly 
accurate, about the great benefits of GMOs. Why not put on there, 
``GMOs solve global warming.'' Put it right there on the label. For all 
the people who are concerned about climate change, that would be 
something.
  Now, 64 countries around the world require labeling; and many, many 
large U.S. firms actually do label in those countries. The countries 
are all the European Union--that is a pretty big slice of the world 
economy--China, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Brazil, India, New 
Zealand, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Saudi Arabia. Now, all of 
those countries require it; U.S. manufacturers ship products to those 
countries, and they put it on the label.
  Now, Hershey's is not the only company that does this. This is a 
Hershey's label, and it is ``made in the USA.'' We like that. We like 
exporting things around the world, so we are very proud of the exports 
of Hershey's and other food manufacturers, but because of laws in 
Sweden, they have to say ``contains genetically modified organisms.''
  Now, somehow, they can do that there. I mean, the EU has consistent 
rules, and my bill would have rules consistent with the EU. They could 
make one label, which would go to about half the world's economy. If it 
really costs money to print different labels, that would actually save 
them money, and it would do away with this argument about a 
proliferation of various different labels across the U.S.
  There are some other countries that have different requirements, and 
they do still export to those countries, too. They can't have a uniform 
overseas label, but they could get darn close with all of the European 
Union, United States; and New Zealand and Australia are virtually 
identical.
  Now, it isn't just Hershey's. These large companies go into--at 
least--50 of the 64 countries that require labeling: Pepsi, Tyson, 
Nestle, Coke, Mars, Hershey, Kellogg, and Heinz.
  Now, I was contacted by Hershey, and they said: We can't deal with 
the proliferation in the States.
  Then they should support my bill. Get a uniform national label. Let 
consumers know it contains GMOs. Monsanto can go out and tout the 
benefits or others can tout the benefits of GMOs, and then they could 
have one label for the EU and the United States.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, the United States should not let other 
countries dictate U.S. food policy. This would be absurd. It is exactly 
what this amendment does.
  The proponents of this amendment seemingly wish to scare the public 
with unjustified warning labels on all products produced with any 
technology or, short of that, punish companies that have the audacity 
to engage in foreign commerce.
  Just because European policy has been driven by fear-mongering, we 
should not allow it to be so here in the United States. We should not 
succumb to this angry rhetoric. We should lead the world in getting 
this policy right.
  Now, let's just say, for sake of argument, we were to pass this 
amendment. I would like to ask: Who would be responsible for 
enforcement of such a quagmire? What agency licenses exports of food? 
What agency would be responsible for monitoring where in the world 
those products went and what specific requirements were placed on them 
by the countries receiving those products?
  Assuming such information is actually obtained, that information is 
likely proprietary business information, exempted from disclosure 
between agencies by the Freedom of Information Act.
  Here in the United States, we rely on the FDA for responsibility for 
food inspection, but as many proponents of

[[Page H5431]]

mandatory warning labels are quick to point out, the FDA inspects less 
than 1 percent of the products.
  Are the proponents just doing this for show? Or do they actually 
expect an agency to fulfill its enforcement obligation? If so, has this 
amendment been scored?
  I can only imagine what the cost will be to the agency to ensure that 
labels mandated by this amendment's sponsors are accurate.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would take us backwards. It would 
require an even more patchwork set of rules. I urge that we get to 
uniformity. The logistics of enforcing every product label and their 
counterpart in 1 of 195 other countries in the world would be costly 
and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
  I urge the defeat of this ill-conceived effort to punish American 
businessmen and -women who are doing their best to grow our economy.
  I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, 64 countries require labeling, including the 
European Union. This would give companies an opportunity to have a 
consistent label across the United States and into the European Union.
  Consumers want this. The polls are consistently 88 percent. Monsanto 
spends $20 million, $30 million like they did in Oregon convincing 
people it would drive up food costs; and then they won by one one-
hundredths of 1 percent in that election, after spending a record 
amount of money.
  Americans want to know what is in their food; don't put them in the 
dark.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, we should not create a system whereby U.S. 
food producers are at the complete mercy of global actors all around 
the world. Goodness knows what the requirements would be for their 
labels here.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Huffman

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part B of House Report 114-216.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 10, line 12, at the end of section 113 of the bill 
     insert the following: ``Nothing in this title or the 
     amendments made thereby shall be construed to limit the 
     authority of a State or tribe (or a political subdivision 
     thereof) to prohibit or restrict the cultivation of 
     genetically engineered plants on or near tribal lands.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 369, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Huffman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to ensure 
tribal sovereignty is not inadvertently harmed by this legislation, the 
DARK Act.
  I am joined by several colleagues in support of this amendment, 
including cosponsors Representatives Polis, McCollum, Grijalva, and 
Ruiz.
  Now, much of the debate this morning has focused on how and if this 
bill will preempt State and local laws, which would include ordinances 
in my district that have been adopted by Marin, Mendocino, Humboldt, 
and Trinity Counties.

                              {time}  1230

  I agree with my colleagues: we deserve to know what is in our food, 
and this bill prevents local and State governments from providing 
consumers with that information, the information they want.
  But in today's debate, little has been said about the need to protect 
the principle of tribal self-governance. I recognize that some of my 
colleagues believe the manager's amendment addresses any concerns 
regarding preemption and tribal sovereignty. I disagree. That is why I 
am offering this amendment to address any potential ambiguity in the 
bill, and to ensure that tribes can continue to take action on GMOs, as 
many of them have sought to do. If the underlying bill is supposed to 
protect tribal sovereignty, I would hope that the bill supporters 
wouldn't mind making that protection explicit by passing this 
amendment.
  In 2013, the National Congress of American Indians, which supports my 
amendment today, passed a resolution calling on Congress and the 
Federal Government to ``preserve, protect, and maintain the integrity 
of traditional native foods, seeds, and agricultural systems . . . 
support the labeling of seeds or products containing GE technology and 
ingredients . . . create GE and transgenic crop-free zones; and oppose 
the use and cultivation of GE seeds in the United States.'' But this 
bill would preempt the creation of a national standard for GMOs that 
NCAI has asked for.
  Now, this is not just about crops, Mr. Chairman. The Affiliated 
Tribes of Northwest Indians, which includes several tribes in my 
district, are strongly opposed to the FDA approval of genetically 
engineered salmon due to the potential for harmful impacts on wild 
salmon that are so important to the tribes and to, frankly, the 
commercial economy in my district. Under this legislation, it is hard 
to see how FDA could ever require the labeling of genetically 
engineered salmon.
  With the significant concerns over GE foods and the proactive steps 
that tribes are taking on their lands and resources, we ought to make 
clear that this bill will not affect tribes' authorities to prohibit or 
restrict the cultivation of GE plants on or near tribal lands.
  The Congressional Research Service has taken a look at this bill's 
new preemption section, and they have said that the effects of the 
preemption language are ambiguous. In the case of impacts to tribes, we 
ought to leave no ambiguity.
  I urge support of this amendment. No matter how we feel about the 
legislation as a whole, I would hope, at the very least, we could 
clarify that tribes should retain the authority to restrict GE plants 
on their own lands, if they so choose.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, simply put, H.R. 1599 does not prohibit 
local governments from passing and enforcing bans on cultivation of 
genetically engineered crops. Similarly, it does not do that with 
respect to tribal sovereignty either.
  The bill before us applies only to the food use and labels. There is 
nothing in this legislation that any opponent can point to that 
suggests or implies interference with State or local ordinances related 
to plant cultivation, period.
  Likewise, the preemption provision that the amendment seeks to modify 
only applies to States and political subdivisions thereof. Tribal lands 
are sovereign. They are not affected.
  If the amendment sponsor wishes only to clarify sovereign rights of 
tribal governments on their land, then we would be happy to work with 
him, but the structure of this amendment appears to provide tribal 
governments with some level of authority over land outside of their 
boundaries. This may or may not have been the intended purpose of the 
amendment, but it has serious unintended consequences.
  I urge the sponsor to withdraw this amendment and allow us the 
opportunity to work together to address their concerns.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the intent is not to prohibit or 
restrict or preempt tribal sovereignty, why not make it clear, why not 
pass this amendment?
  I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, there are three preemption sections in 
this bill: one prohibits States from labeling GMOs; another establishes 
something for a label called ``natural,'' which will contain GMOs and 
can contain GMOs and still be labeled ``natural''; and then

[[Page H5432]]

finally, a very poorly written big section that seems to preempt all 
State regulations and tribal regulations.
  The Navajo Nation has a ban on the cultivation of genetically 
modified crops. They are trying to preserve their indigenous crops.
  States have provided for buffer zones in 30 States. This bill, I 
believe, will preempt those 30 States from establishing buffer zones to 
protect conventional crops.
  We had conventional wheat in Oregon that was banned from export 
because of GMO pollution--conventional wheat, let alone organic wheat, 
which would be worthless if it had GMO pollution.
  So in this bill I had an amendment to clarify this section and say, 
no, no, no, not preempting State Departments of Agriculture 
establishing reasonable rules to protect conventional and organic 
farmers from preemption. They say they fixed it. I don't believe they 
have. That part of the bill is very vague. This, I believe, could both 
preempt tribal sovereign entity, State sovereign entity, and reasonable 
regulations to protect other farmers.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, the language is very clear. It says that 
``no State or political subdivision of a State may directly or 
indirectly establish under any authority or continue in effect as to 
any food in interstate commerce any requirement with respect to 
genetically engineered plants for a use or application of food that is 
not identical to the requirement of section 461 of the Plant Protection 
Act.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree that that language 
is clear, but I would note that that language says nothing about tribal 
sovereignty.
  Mr. Chairman, colleagues, this is a bill that is deeply flawed. It 
should be opposed for all sorts of reasons. But here is an amendment 
that would at least make it a little better for those of us that 
represent Indian Country, for those of us that care about tribal 
sovereignty.
  For those of us that want to protect the tribes who have taken action 
on their land, who have in some cases partnered with States for buffer 
zones near tribal land, we ought to at least take this additional step 
to make it clear that they can do that, that we are not running 
roughshod over their tribal sovereignty.
  With that, I request an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, nothing in this amendment will impact 
tribal sovereignty one iota. It talks about States and political 
subdivisions. That doesn't apply in any way to tribal land.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Huffman).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. DeLauro

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part B of House Report 114-216.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 33, lines 13 through 17, amend paragraph (2) to read 
     as follows:
       ``(2) A claim described in subparagraph (1) may be made 
     only if--
       ``(A) the claim uses terms that have been defined by, and 
     the food meets the requirements that have been established 
     in, regulations promulgated to carry out this paragraph; and
       ``(B) the food is not produced using, does not contain, and 
     does not consist of a genetically engineered plant.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 369, the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would make clear that foods labeled 
``natural'' cannot contain genetically modified material.
  I want to emphasize right from the outset it is about our basic right 
to know what we are eating and what we are feeding to our children.
  FDA already requires clear labeling of over 3,000 ingredients, 
additives, and food processes. One example: fruit juice must indicate 
whether or not it is from concentrate. Clearly, that is not a judgment 
on food safety; it is a simple matter of transparency.
  Calling GMO foods ``natural'' is not transparent. It is confusing, 
and we have the data to back that up.
  As Members can see from the chart behind me, almost two-thirds of 
American adults believe that ``natural'' already means GMO-free, and 84 
percent agree that that is what it should mean.
  We need to make sure that food labels reflect that commonsense 
understanding. As drafted, this bill would do the opposite. It would 
codify the status quo, being that food companies can put ``natural'' on 
a product, even if it was genetically engineered, which allows 
misleading labels. It would perpetuate misunderstandings and confusion. 
It would keep American families in the dark.
  This is not what the American public wants. More than 90 percent of 
us want clear GMO labeling. In response to this overwhelming demand, 
three States--Vermont, Maine, and my home State of Connecticut--have 
passed laws restricting the ``natural'' label to foods that do not 
contain GMOs. Several other States are considering similar laws.
  Without my amendment, this bill would nullify those State laws. This 
would represent a serious setback for the right to know in these States 
around the country.
  Mr. Chairman, American families want clear information about GMOs. 
They deserve that information. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I wish to rise in 
opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), my colleague.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this bill would deceive consumers. It 
would say that there will now be an FDA definition of ``natural.'' The 
FDA has never, ever wanted to try and define ``natural'' and that it 
would include GMOs. Something labeled as ``natural''--Cheerios, 
naturally flavored--if it contained GMOs, they wouldn't have to say 
that.
  So consumers often, in fact, confuse the ``organic'' and the 
``natural'' label. In fact, some polls show that consumers more often 
think ``natural'' is natural and they are not quite sure what 
``organic'' is. This bill is going to muddy those waters further, 
deceive consumers, and have them buy things labeled ``natural'' that 
contain genetically modified organisms.
  Why is that in this bill? We can fight over the labeling standards 
for disclosure. Why are you going to muddy the waters and confuse 
things and create a new mandatory Federal definition and label for 
``natural'' that contains GMOs?
  Again, here we have all natural vodka creamy marinara. Wow, that is 
something. And again, this has a number of things in it that very 
likely contain GMOs that wouldn't be disclosed. But they do have to 
disclose, and she does, cellulose, sorbic acid, whey, xanthan gum, 
vodka--of course, it is vodka sauce. But in the future, natural, 
contains GMOs, no disclosure.
  This is really, really I think probably the most egregious part of a 
very egregious bill--preempting states' rights. Remember, this is the 
party of states' rights. Until a State does something they don't like, 
then we have got to preempt it.
  Then they say, well, we can't have proliferation of labels. Well, 
there is a very simple solution, my bill, one mandatory standard 
Federal label that would say, ``contains GMOs.'' Then that label could 
be sold into the European Union. You would be able to sell to about 
half of the world's economy with one label; whereas, today, you have 
got to have one label for the EU, one label for the U.S., and then a 
multiple of other countries where 50 major corporations sell their 
products.

[[Page H5433]]

  This is so disingenuous. It is very discouraging.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 1 minute remaining.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, as I said at the beginning, this is not a 
question of safety or otherwise of GMO foods. We need to ask ourselves 
a simple question: Does the word ``natural'' really mean to a salmon 
engineered to grow at double the normal rate? a cereal created in a 
laboratory to be resistant to herbicide? a tomato with fish genes? Are 
these things natural? Our common sense says no. A clear majority of 
Americans agree. By overwhelming margins, we want to know when our food 
contains GMOs.
  We are what we eat, and whether it is the number of calories in our 
kids' Happy Meals, the country where our beef was raised, or the GMO 
content of the food we buy at the supermarket, as consumers, as 
parents, as Americans, we have a right to know.
  As drafted, this bill would fly in the face of that broad consensus 
and keep us in the dark. For the sake of transparency and for 
commonsense, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting; this 
whole entire debate we have talked about science. The science clearly 
shows that genetically modified seeds, genetically modified foods, are 
safe for every single American family.
  It is also interesting that my colleague brought a box of Honey Nut 
Cheerios to the floor. My colleague talked about claims made on that 
box. Well, it is interesting that my colleague didn't bring a box of 
regular Cheerios that sometimes contain a label of non-GMO.
  Well, it is a marketing ploy, and that is what we are trying to 
correct here, because there is no GMO oat. It is all to convince 
consumers that it is somehow safer, even though there is no distinction 
between that Cheerios that has that label and the other Cheerios box 
that doesn't.

                              {time}  1245

  It is interesting to see those specific points brought to the floor 
to try and make this case. It is just clearly not resonating with the 
American people.
  There are no clear and consistent standards for the term ``natural,'' 
which is why we are trying to correct this in this bill.
  We need to make sure that consistent litigation that has come about 
because of the very definitions of what the term ``natural'' means can 
stop. Let's put a clear standard in place.
  H.R. 1599 also requires the FDA to file a notice and comment 
rulemaking process to define and set standards for the term 
``natural.'' I thought this was exactly what the rulemaking process was 
supposed to be used for.
  This will allow for an open, transparent, public process so that the 
FDA can establish such standards based on the facts, the science, and 
the input received.
  This amendment would predetermine that outcome and not allow for a 
science-based, fact-driven process--that is open to the public--to 
continue to move forward.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Let's get on the path 
of passing H.R. 1599 in this House.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Pingree

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
part B of House Report 114-216.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 1, strike line 1 and all that follows through the end 
     of the bill, and insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Non-GMO Disclosure Act of 
     2015''.

     SEC. 2. NON-GMO FOOD CERTIFICATION PROGRAM.

       The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subtitle:

            ``Subtitle E--Non-GMO Food Certification Program

     ``SEC. 291. CERTIFICATION OF NON-GMO FOODS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     voluntary certification program for food produced without the 
     use of genetic engineering to be known as the Non-GMO Food 
     Certification Program.
       ``(b) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with other 
     relevant parties to develop the Non-GMO Food Certification 
     Program.
       ``(c) Certification.--The Secretary shall implement the 
     Non-GMO Food Certification Program through certifying agents. 
     Certifying agents may certify that products were not produced 
     with the use of genetic engineering or a genetically 
     engineered plant, in accordance with this subtitle.
       ``(d) Seal.--The Secretary shall establish a seal to 
     identify products that were not produced with the use of 
     genetic engineering or a genetically engineered plant in 
     interstate commerce using terminology the Secretary considers 
     appropriate, including terminology commonly used in 
     interstate commerce or established by the Secretary in 
     regulations.

     ``SEC. 292. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subtitle:
       ``(1) Genetically engineered.--The term `genetically 
     engineered', used with respect to a food, means a material 
     intended for human consumption that is--
       ``(A) an organism that is produced through the intentional 
     use of genetic engineering; or
       ``(B) the progeny of intended sexual or asexual 
     reproduction (or both) of 1 or more organisms that is the 
     product of genetic engineering.
       ``(2) Genetic engineering.--The term `genetic engineering' 
     means a process--
       ``(A) involving the application of in vitro nucleic acid 
     techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) 
     and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or 
     organelles;
       ``(B) involving the application of fusion of cells beyond 
     the taxonomic family; or
       ``(C) that overcomes natural physiological, reproductive, 
     or recombinant barriers and that is not a process used in 
     traditional breeding and selection.''.

     SEC. 3. REGULATIONS.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations to 
     implement the Non-GMO Food Certification Program in 
     accordance with section 291 of the Agricultural Marketing Act 
     of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.), as added by section 2.

     SEC. 4. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       Nothing in this Act (or the amendments made by this Act) is 
     intended to alter or affect the authorities or regulatory 
     programs, policies, and procedures otherwise available to, or 
     the definitions used by, the Food and Drug Administration 
     under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 
     et seq.) or the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
     under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).

  Ms. PINGREE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from 
Maine?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 369, the gentlewoman from 
Maine (Ms. Pingree) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maine.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the lively debate that has gone on today, and I want to 
speak in favor of this particular amendment.
  This is the Pingree-DeFazio-Polis amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, which strikes all of the anticonsumer and antifarmer 
provisions of the underlying bill.
  This comes down to a very simple proposition: Do consumers have a 
right to know what is in the food they buy and that they feed to their 
families?
  As we have heard many times today, 9 out of 10 consumers say, yes, 
they support GMO labeling. The public wants to know, as more and more 
people care about what is in their food and where it comes from. People 
want to know more, not less, about what they eat.
  We already know a lot about our food. We know how many calories are 
in it, thanks to the labels. We know how much vitamin C we get per 
serving. We know if a fish is farm raised or wild caught.

[[Page H5434]]

  We want to know those things. We actually know if our orange juice is 
made from concentrate or not. Maybe not everybody wants to know that, 
but it is right there on the label. Shouldn't we also be able to know 
if the food we are buying has GMO ingredients?
  I know some of the opponents of labeling have suggested that 
consumers might be frightened by GMO ingredients if they were to see 
them on the labels.
  Do we really think that consumers are not smart enough to handle this 
information? Do we really think that 90 percent of Americans are wrong 
to want GMO products labeled?
  Not only does this bill make it very unlikely that we would ever see 
the labeling of GMO products on a national basis, but it goes after the 
laws that have already been passed at the State level, just like in my 
State of Maine.
  Our law was passed by a Democratic legislature, was signed by a 
conservative Republican Governor, and it has a huge amount of public 
support.
  Now Congress wants to tell the consumers of my State and my State 
legislators that they cannot have this basic piece of information.
  I guarantee you, if Congress passes this law, my State legislature 
and my constituents will not be happy. They do not want to see their 
ability to make those decisions taken away.
  Not only does this bill go after State labeling laws, but it may also 
preempt laws and regulations at a local level that protect farmers from 
contamination by drift from GMO crops.
  In my State and in many others, local organic farms are contributing 
to the economy by growing high-value, high-demand crops.
  Some local and county governments have created buffer zones to 
protect those farms from contamination from GMO crops, and we have 
heard from experts who say this bill would preempt these laws.
  Why would we want to do that? Why would we want to undercut one of 
the fastest growing sectors in our farm economy that has been very 
beneficial to rural States like mine--that has revitalized many 
communities and that has provided economic opportunities for our 
farmers? What reason would we have to go in the opposite direction?
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It would strike the 
dangerous parts of this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would completely gut the 
primary purpose of the legislation before us today.
  In order to prevent a patchwork of 50 different labeling laws for 
genetically engineered ingredients, preemption is necessary to protect 
interstate commerce.
  Of course, we have heard a lot today about states' rights, but the 
Founders understood what was important about interstate commerce.
  They knew that local governments were at risk of trying to put in 
place rules that favored local activities; so they accounted for this. 
They created what is called the Interstate Commerce Clause.
  It is right there in the Constitution, and it is pretty darned clear. 
It was about trade between the States. It said that the Federal 
Government shall have the authority to regulate this trade. It is 
important that we do this today, but this amendment would deny us the 
capacity to do that.
  Current State labeling initiatives include a number of varying 
exemptions, loopholes, and caveats, making it very confusing for not 
only food producers, but for consumers to understand what it is they 
are truly consuming.
  H.R. 1599 builds on this idea of a uniform standard to provide 
clarity and consistency to consumers that they can depend upon, 
regardless of where they shop for food.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr), my good friend and the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. 
The author is an organic grower. She knows how people care about what 
is in their food.
  I represent one of the most successful agricultural counties in the 
United States--Monterey County. I challenge anybody to find a county in 
this country that makes $4.5 billion a year by growing over 100 
different crops in one county.
  Food is just like politics--it is all local. What the underlying bill 
does is strike local control--local control where people care about the 
methodology of growing.
  My area is the area that blossomed into creating the California 
Organic Standards Act, which I authored in the California State 
Legislature, which became the model for the Federal Organic Standards 
Act. This preempts some of the regulations in there. That is not a good 
thing to do.
  Although the Federal Government may have the authority on interstate 
commerce, I don't think that people want the Federal Government to 
preempt the ability for them to know their farmers, to know their food, 
and to have it be labeled as they so choose in a local area.
  Labeling is really important, but what you do is change the 
definition of labels here to one size fits all. That is not the way 
this country works. That is not the way farming works. And it is 
certainly not the way that consumers want it to be.
  It is too early for the Federal Government, for Congress, to jump in 
and try to mix up this field. Allow local politics to exist. Allow 
people to choose to know what is in their food by allowing it to be 
labeled locally.

  Let's support American agriculture so that we can sell it abroad. 
This bill does everything but gain confidence. The amendment is to be 
supported.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to follow my 
colleague from California. Less than a year ago I was in his fine 
district, and I saw the benefits of the agricultural industry in 
Monterey, California.
  I actually toured an organic food processing facility in and around 
my colleague's district, and I saw firsthand the impact of California 
agriculture.
  I want my colleagues to be assured that the organic labeling program 
is exactly what this bill is modeled after.
  The words that may have been developed in the California State Senate 
and in the California State Assembly are part of our national organic 
standards because they work. Organic is a voluntary program just like 
we are trying to put forth.
  This is exactly what we are trying to do, Mr. Chairman--address the 
concerns of many Americans who want a label and who have contacted our 
offices.
  Americans also want standards; so, when we hear words like 
``contamination,'' unfortunately, it connotates negativity to consumers 
that somehow GMOs are bad for them. The science, though, clearly shows 
they are not.
  As a matter of fact, I just walked over to the Senate side and sat 
down with some of my colleagues who probably will not vote for this 
bill. We didn't know, because there was no label, whether or not that 
sandwich we ate contained genetically modified organisms--seeds--if it 
were produced with GMOs.
  We are trying to fix that. We would allow that sandwich shop to 
actually meet a set of standards, just like how our organic growers do 
today, to determine what a GMO product means.
  When we hear about trade, earlier today, I was with a member of the 
European Parliament, Julie Girling. We were talking about some of the 
impacts of the GMO rules and regulations in the EU on their ability to 
get cheap food into their supermarkets.
  I would urge my colleagues to talk to those who are experiencing the 
exact same thing right now in our European countries that are our 
allies. Talk with Ms. Girling. Talk to her about the problems that 
Europe is experiencing.
  We are trying to stop those problems from happening here in America. 
I want to make sure that we use science--that we use the facts--and 
that we use a model of a very successful organic labeling program to 
write this bill.
  Therefore, my colleagues should be in favor of this if they are so in 
favor of the existing program today.

[[Page H5435]]

  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, who cares deeply about issues surrounding our environment 
and public health.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered to H.R. 1599 by 
Congresswoman Pingree and Congressman DeFazio would replace the 
underlying bill with a voluntary certification program for non-
genetically engineered foods, enabling companies that elect to go 
through this process to certify that their food is non-GE and share 
this information with consumers through a seal established by the USDA, 
similar to the organic program.
  This amendment is a step forward in providing consumers with the 
information they want. While this amendment would preserve the ability 
of States and localities to act in regards to the labeling of non-GE 
and GE foods, it unfortunately does not address the problem many of us 
have heard about today, and that is a patchwork of food labeling 
requirements across the country.
  As I have said previously, I can't support preempting State labeling 
laws without establishing a national mandatory labeling standard in its 
place. Moving forward, I hope that we can work with the Senate to 
strike a balance that will address concerns we have heard on both sides 
of this issue.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a hard-working Congressman who cares deeply, 
as well, about agriculture issues and about the consumers in his State.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentlewoman who represents the other 
Portland. I deeply appreciated her leadership and insight in this area.
  Mr. Chairman, these are areas that touch Americans on a whole host of 
levels, but one of the things that is important to note is that the 
extreme provisions of the preemption bill, of the underlying bill that 
we are discussing, actually have significant negative consequences on 
hard-working farmers in our State.
  There are vast world markets that we export to, and most of the world 
markets care about whether or not the product is genetically engineered 
or not. You can argue the merits, but the world market has made a 
judgment.
  We had some cross contamination in wheat for the genetically 
engineered strain, which set off alarm bells. Oregon farmers lost 
business as a result of that.
  The underlying bill would undercut the efforts of 40 States in 
working with their local communities to try and provide protections.
  Whether or not you are going to label it, there is no reason that you 
can't provide reasonable buffers around crops that are genetically 
modified so that you can help provide some protection.

                              {time}  1300

  Why would we want to strip away the ability of State and local 
governments to provide those sort of protections?
  Now, in the long run, Mr. Chairman, what we need to do is just have a 
uniform national policy that labels these, that gets rid of all the 
problems of multiplicity of labels and the costs and the confusion. My 
good friend from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) has legislation that would do 
precisely that. But in the meantime, I deeply appreciate my friend from 
Maine stepping up to get rid of the most egregious part of the 
underlying bill, create a program that they can label their products GE 
free, and get rid of these egregious preemption provisions.
  Mr. POMPEO. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Would the Chair please inform how much time I have 
remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine has 2 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Kansas has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have heard a lot of arguments about this bill today and the 
various components of it, why the bill is not a good idea, and why my 
amendment, which would strike most of the egregious parts of the bill, 
would be a beneficial way to change this.
  Just to go back to my favorite example about labeling, the next time 
you go into a grocery store, take a look at the carton of orange juice. 
Right there on the front of the label you will see the words ``from 
concentrate'' on most of the juice boxes. By law, those words have to 
appear right there on the front of the label in letters at least half 
as tall as the name of the brand. We are that specific.
  Now, the fact that we need to know the difference in that carton 
between fresh squeezed and made from concentrate or any other process 
that might have been used shows me that we have decided to have labels 
for almost everything you can think of except GMO ingredients.
  If it is so important for Americans to know whether or not their 
orange juice is made from a concentrate, don't you think it is 
reasonable to put a label somewhere on the back of a package of food 
telling consumers whether or not it contains GMO ingredients?
  This bill, if it is passed by the House, will effectively guarantee 
that consumers won't have access to that information when they go to 
the grocery store. This bill will take away the rights of States like 
mine in Maine to pass laws that protect our consumers. States like 
Maine and Vermont, who have already passed laws like this, will not 
have the right to proceed. The Pingree-DeFazio-Polis amendment will 
strike the worst parts of this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMPEO. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would put us right back where we are 
today, with a patchwork of laws confusing consumers and making it 
difficult on American food companies to compete around the world to 
feed the next billion people.
  This amendment would drive up the cost of food for every consumer in 
the United States of America by relegating them to the set of patchwork 
rules, which would drive costs throughout the food safety and supply 
chain.
  We have heard today that this puts farmers at risk, it makes life for 
farmers difficult. We have heard from Representatives from Maine who 
said that, and yet the Maine Beverage Association and the Maine Potato 
Board both endorsed this legislation.
  We have heard that this will hurt Oregon farmers and Oregon 
consumers, and yet the Oregon Farm Bureau, the Oregon Feed and Grain 
Association, the Oregon Potato Commission, the Oregon Retail Council, 
the Oregon Seed Association, the Oregon Wheat Growers League, and 
Oregonians for Food & Shelter endorsed this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will gut this entire legislation. It 
takes away the important balance that has been struck in order to make 
sure that, in fact, consumers do have the right to know.
  We have heard these vague epithets trying to rename this bill the 
DARK Act, Denying Americans the Right to Know, but as a good 
conservative, I can promise you, this bill doesn't deny any consumer 
any right to know what is in their food product.
  If a consumer, like my cousin, who likes her non-GMO food, wants to 
continue to feed that to herself and her family, when this bill becomes 
law, she will still be able to do so. I would never deny any American 
the right to know what is in their food.
  This is about freedom and consumer choice and affordability. Our bill 
will achieve that, and this amendment would destroy that. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
  The amendment was rejected.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 114-216 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Huffman of California.
  Amendment No. 3 by Ms. DeLauro of Connecticut.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

[[Page H5436]]

                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 123, 
noes 303, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 459]

                               AYES--123

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeSaulnier
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Higgins
     Honda
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--303

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bera
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carney
     Carter (GA)
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Larsen (WA)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Price, Tom
     Quigley
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brady (PA)
     Carter (TX)
     Clawson (FL)
     Israel
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Lujan Grisham (NM)

                              {time}  1332

  Ms. KELLY of Illinois, Messrs. DONOVAN, AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, 
CLAY, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Messrs. BUTTERFIELD and LAWRENCE changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California changed her vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Huffman

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196, 
noes 227, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 460]

                               AYES--196

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blum
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     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
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Gibson
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meeks
     Meng
     Miller (MI)
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rokita
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Zinke

[[Page H5437]]



                               NOES--227

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     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
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     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
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bishop (MI)
     Brady (PA)
     Carter (TX)
     Clawson (FL)
     Israel
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Pearce
     Royce


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1338

  Mr. FLEISCHMANN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. VEASEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. DeLauro

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163, 
noes 262, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 461]

                               AYES--163

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Loudermilk
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Zeldin

                               NOES--262

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bera
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     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)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lofgren
     Long
     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 (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Perry
     Peters
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Takano
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Veasey
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Brady (PA)
     Carter (TX)
     Clawson (FL)
     Israel
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Pearce

                              {time}  1342

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chair of the Committee

[[Page H5438]]

of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1599) to amend 
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to food produced 
from, containing, or consisting of a bioengineered organism, the 
labeling of natural foods, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to 
House Resolution 369, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 275, 
noes 150, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 462]

                               AYES--275

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bera
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carney
     Carter (GA)
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norcross
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Veasey
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zinke

                               NOES--150

     Aguilar
     Amash
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Poliquin
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bishop (UT)
     Brady (PA)
     Carter (TX)
     Clawson (FL)
     Israel
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Lujan Grisham (NM)

                              {time}  1350

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk to change the 
title of the bill to the ``Deny Americans the Right to Know Act.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Polis moves to amend the title of H.R. 1599 to read as 
     follows: ``A bill to enact the `Deny Americans the Right to 
     Know Act' or the `DARK Act'.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 6 of rule XVI, the amendment is 
not debatable.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the amendment to the title will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 370.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 87, 
nays 337, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 463]

                                YEAS--87

     Aguilar
     Bass
     Becerra
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Capps
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cummings
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Fattah
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Higgins
     Honda
     Huffman
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Kuster
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Massie
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Pingree
     Polis
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schiff
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch

                               NAYS--337

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei

[[Page H5439]]


     Ashford
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Beatty
     Benishek
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carter (GA)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norcross
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Palmer
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Price, Tom
     Quigley
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Brady (PA)
     Carter (TX)
     Clawson (FL)
     Israel
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lynch
     Woodall


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1407

  Mr. RUIZ and Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________