[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.
____________________