[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 114 (Thursday, July 14, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4932-H4939]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2015

  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 822, I call up 
the bill (S. 764) to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant 
College Program Act, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment 
to the House amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the Senate 
amendment to the House amendment.
  Senate amendment to House amendment:

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. NATIONAL BIOENGINEERED FOOD DISCLOSURE STANDARD.

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

     ``Subtitle E--National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard

     ``SEC. 291. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this subtitle:
       ``(1) Bioengineering.--The term `bioengineering', and any 
     similar term, as determined by the Secretary, with respect to 
     a food, refers to a food--
       ``(A) that contains genetic material that has been modified 
     through in vitro recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) 
     techniques; and
       ``(B) for which the modification could not otherwise be 
     obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature.
       ``(2) Food.--The term `food' means a food (as defined in 
     section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 321)) that is intended for human consumption.
       ``(3) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.

     ``SEC. 292. APPLICABILITY.

       ``(a) In General.--This subtitle shall apply to any claim 
     in a disclosure that a food bears that indicates that the 
     food is a bioengineered food.
       ``(b) Application of Definition.--The definition of the 
     term `bioengineering' under section 291 shall not affect any 
     other definition, program, rule, or regulation of the Federal 
     Government.
       ``(c) Application to Foods.--This subtitle shall apply only 
     to a food subject to--
       ``(1) the labeling requirements under the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.); or
       ``(2) the labeling requirements under the Federal Meat 
     Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Poultry Products 
     Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or the Egg Products 
     Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.) only if--
       ``(A) the most predominant ingredient of the food would 
     independently be subject to the labeling requirements under 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et 
     seq.); or
       ``(B)(i) the most predominant ingredient of the food is 
     broth, stock, water, or a similar solution; and
       ``(ii) the second-most predominant ingredient of the food 
     would independently be subject to the labeling requirements 
     under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 
     et seq.).

     ``SEC. 293. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL BIOENGINEERED FOOD 
                   DISCLOSURE STANDARD.

       ``(a) Establishment of Mandatory Standard.--Not later than 
     2 years after the date of enactment of this subtitle, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(1) establish a national mandatory bioengineered food 
     disclosure standard with respect to any bioengineered food 
     and any food that may be bioengineered; and
       ``(2) establish such requirements and procedures as the 
     Secretary determines necessary to carry out the standard.
       ``(b) Regulations.--
       ``(1) In general.--A food may bear a disclosure that the 
     food is bioengineered only in accordance with regulations 
     promulgated by the Secretary in accordance with this 
     subtitle.
       ``(2) Requirements.--A regulation promulgated by the 
     Secretary in carrying out this subtitle shall--
       ``(A) prohibit a food derived from an animal to be 
     considered a bioengineered food solely because the animal 
     consumed feed produced from, containing, or consisting of a 
     bioengineered substance;
       ``(B) determine the amounts of a bioengineered substance 
     that may be present in food, as appropriate, in order for the 
     food to be a bioengineered food;
       ``(C) establish a process for requesting and granting a 
     determination by the Secretary regarding other factors and 
     conditions under which a food is considered a bioengineered 
     food;
       ``(D) in accordance with subsection (d), require that the 
     form of a food disclosure under this section be a text, 
     symbol, or electronic or digital link, but excluding Internet 
     website Uniform Resource Locators not embedded in the link, 
     with the disclosure option to be selected by the food 
     manufacturer;
       ``(E) provide alternative reasonable disclosure options for 
     food contained in small or very small packages;
       ``(F) in the case of small food manufacturers, provide--
       ``(i) an implementation date that is not earlier than 1 
     year after the implementation date for regulations 
     promulgated in accordance with this section; and
       ``(ii) on-package disclosure options, in addition to those 
     available under subparagraph (D), to be selected by the small 
     food manufacturer, that consist of--

       ``(I) a telephone number accompanied by appropriate 
     language to indicate that the phone number provides access to 
     additional information; and
       ``(II) an Internet website maintained by the small food 
     manufacturer in a manner consistent with subsection (d), as 
     appropriate; and

[[Page H4933]]

       ``(G) exclude--
       ``(i) food served in a restaurant or similar retail food 
     establishment; and
       ``(ii) very small food manufacturers.
       ``(3) Safety.--For the purpose of regulations promulgated 
     and food disclosures made pursuant to paragraph (2), a 
     bioengineered food that has successfully completed the pre-
     market Federal regulatory review process shall not be treated 
     as safer than, or not as safe as, a non-bioengineered 
     counterpart of the food solely because the food is 
     bioengineered or produced or developed with the use of 
     bioengineering.
       ``(c) Study of Electronic or Digital Link Disclosure.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this subtitle, the Secretary shall conduct a 
     study to identify potential technological challenges that may 
     impact whether consumers would have access to the 
     bioengineering disclosure through electronic or digital 
     disclosure methods.
       ``(2) Public comments.--In conducting the study under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall solicit and consider 
     comments from the public.
       ``(3) Factors.--The study conducted under paragraph (1) 
     shall consider whether consumer access to the bioengineering 
     disclosure through electronic or digital disclosure methods 
     under this subtitle would be affected by the following 
     factors:
       ``(A) The availability of wireless Internet or cellular 
     networks.
       ``(B) The availability of landline telephones in stores.
       ``(C) Challenges facing small retailers and rural 
     retailers.
       ``(D) The efforts that retailers and other entities have 
     taken to address potential technology and infrastructure 
     challenges.
       ``(E) The costs and benefits of installing in retail stores 
     electronic or digital link scanners or other evolving 
     technology that provide bioengineering disclosure 
     information.
       ``(4) Additional disclosure options.--If the Secretary 
     determines in the study conducted under paragraph (1) that 
     consumers, while shopping, would not have sufficient access 
     to the bioengineering disclosure through electronic or 
     digital disclosure methods, the Secretary, after consultation 
     with food retailers and manufacturers, shall provide 
     additional and comparable options to access the 
     bioengineering disclosure.
       ``(d) Disclosure.--In promulgating regulations under this 
     section, the Secretary shall ensure that--
       ``(1) on-package language accompanies--
       ``(A) the electronic or digital link disclosure, indicating 
     that the electronic or digital link will provide access to an 
     Internet website or other landing page by stating only `Scan 
     here for more food information', or equivalent language that 
     only reflects technological changes; or
       ``(B) any telephone number disclosure, indicating that the 
     telephone number will provide access to additional 
     information by stating only `Call for more food 
     information.';
       ``(2) the electronic or digital link will provide access to 
     the bioengineering disclosure located, in a consistent and 
     conspicuous manner, on the first product information page 
     that appears for the product on a mobile device, Internet 
     website, or other landing page, which shall exclude marketing 
     and promotional information;
       ``(3)(A) the electronic or digital link disclosure may not 
     collect, analyze, or sell any personally identifiable 
     information about consumers or the devices of consumers; but
       ``(B) if information described in subparagraph (A) must be 
     collected to carry out the purposes of this subtitle, that 
     information shall be deleted immediately and not used for any 
     other purpose;
       ``(4) the electronic or digital link disclosure also 
     includes a telephone number that provides access to the 
     bioengineering disclosure; and
       ``(5) the electronic or digital link disclosure is of 
     sufficient size to be easily and effectively scanned or read 
     by a digital device.
       ``(e) State Food Labeling Standards.--Notwithstanding 
     section 295, 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 relating to the labeling or disclosure of whether 
     a food is bioengineered or was developed or produced using 
     bioengineering for a food that is the subject of the national 
     bioengineered food disclosure standard under this section 
     that is not identical to the mandatory disclosure requirement 
     under that standard.
       ``(f) Consistency With Certain Laws.--The Secretary shall 
     consider establishing consistency between--
       ``(1) the national bioengineered food disclosure standard 
     established under this section; and
       ``(2) the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 
     6501 et seq.) and any rules or regulations implementing that 
     Act.
       ``(g) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) Prohibited act.--It shall be a prohibited act for a 
     person to knowingly fail to make a disclosure as required 
     under this section.
       ``(2) Recordkeeping.--Each person subject to the mandatory 
     disclosure requirement under this section shall maintain, and 
     make available to the Secretary, on request, such records as 
     the Secretary determines to be customary or reasonable in the 
     food industry, by regulation, to establish compliance with 
     this section.
       ``(3) Examination and audit.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary may conduct an 
     examination, audit, or similar activity with respect to any 
     records required under paragraph (2).
       ``(B) Notice and hearing.--A person subject to an 
     examination, audit, or similar activity under subparagraph 
     (A) shall be provided notice and opportunity for a hearing on 
     the results of any examination, audit, or similar activity.
       ``(C) Audit results.--After the notice and opportunity for 
     a hearing under subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall make 
     public the summary of any examination, audit, or similar 
     activity under subparagraph (A).
       ``(4) Recall authority.--The Secretary shall have no 
     authority to recall any food subject to this subtitle on the 
     basis of whether the food bears a disclosure that the food is 
     bioengineered.

     ``SEC. 294. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

       ``(a) Trade.--This subtitle shall be applied in a manner 
     consistent with United States obligations under international 
     agreements.
       ``(b) Other Authorities.--Nothing in this subtitle--
       ``(1) affects the authority of the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services or creates any rights or obligations for any 
     person under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 301 et seq.); or
       ``(2) affects the authority of the Secretary of the 
     Treasury or creates any rights or obligations for any person 
     under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (27 U.S.C. 201 
     et seq.).
       ``(c) Other.--A food may not be considered to be `not 
     bioengineered', `non-GMO', or any other similar claim 
     describing the absence of bioengineering in the food solely 
     because the food is not required to bear a disclosure that 
     the food is bioengineered under this subtitle.

                 ``Subtitle F--Labeling of Certain Food

     ``SEC. 295. FEDERAL PREEMPTION.

       ``(a) Definition of Food.--In this subtitle, the term 
     `food' has the meaning given the term in section 201 of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
       ``(b) Federal Preemption.--No State or a political 
     subdivision of a State may directly or indirectly establish 
     under any authority or continue in effect as to any food or 
     seed in interstate commerce any requirement relating to the 
     labeling of whether a food (including food served in a 
     restaurant or similar establishment) or seed is genetically 
     engineered (which shall include such other similar terms as 
     determined by the Secretary of Agriculture) or was developed 
     or produced using genetic engineering, including any 
     requirement for claims that a food or seed is or contains an 
     ingredient that was developed or produced using genetic 
     engineering.

     ``SEC. 296. EXCLUSION FROM FEDERAL PREEMPTION.

       ``Nothing in this subtitle, subtitle E, or any regulation, 
     rule, or requirement promulgated in accordance with this 
     subtitle or subtitle E shall be construed to preempt any 
     remedy created by a State or Federal statutory or common law 
     right.''.

     SEC. 2. ORGANICALLY PRODUCED FOOD.

       In the case of a food certified under the national organic 
     program established under the Organic Foods Production Act of 
     1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.), the certification shall be 
     considered sufficient to make a claim regarding the absence 
     of bioengineering in the food, such as ``not bioengineered'', 
     ``non-GMO'', or another similar claim.


                     Motion Offered by Mr. Conaway

  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
  The text of the motion is as follows:

       Mr. Conaway moves that the House concur in the Senate 
     amendment to the House amendment to the bill, S. 764.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 822, the motion 
shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.

                              {time}  0930


                             General Leave

  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on S. 764.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, for thousands of years, mankind has used biotechnology 
in its various forms to improve crops and livestock. In fact, these 
technologies have led to the evolution of nearly every food product we 
consume and have enabled us to enjoy the safest, highest quality, and 
most abundant and affordable supply food and fiber in the history of 
the world.
  The majority of the scientific community, including the American 
Medical Association, the World Health Organization, and the National 
Academy of Sciences, contends that food products grown with the use of 
biotechnology are just as safe as, if not safer than, any other food.
  Just last month, a group of 107 Nobel laureates joined the effort to 
fight back against the anti-science, activist group Greenpeace for its 
attempts to

[[Page H4934]]

stifle these lifesaving advances. With almost 800 million malnourished 
people worldwide and the global population expected to rise to 9 
billion by 2050, we are more reliant on biotechnology than ever to meet 
the ever-increasing demand for a safe and stable food supply.
  In recent years, campaigns against agricultural biotechnology have 
raised concerns among consumers, and some States have begun to 
implement arbitrary and inconsistent labeling laws that threaten to 
increase consumer confusion and food costs while ultimately interfering 
with interstate commerce.
  The bill before us today addresses these issues by providing a 
blueprint for a nationwide uniform standard for labeling products 
derived from biotechnology. Though I believe the government should only 
require labels when it is a matter of health or safety, or to provide 
valuable nutritional information, it is important that this State-by-
State patchwork not disrupt the nationwide marketing of food.
  With the Vermont mandate kicking in earlier this month, time is now 
of the essence. I reached out to USDA last week, asking for 
clarification on the limits of authority that the Senate bill vests 
with the Secretary. USDA'S response has helped to provide much-needed 
clarity. I include in the Record those letters.

         House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture, 
           Subcommittee on Nutrition,
                                     Washington, DC, July 7, 2016.
     Mr. Jeffrey Prieto,
     General Counsel, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Prieto: In the next day or so, the Senate is 
     expected to vote on S. 764, a bill requiring mandatory 
     disclosure of genetically engineered food. The House of 
     Representatives passed its own bill, the Safe and Accurate 
     Food Labeling Act of 2015, last year. However, because of the 
     time constraint imposed by the Vermont law, the House and 
     Senate will be unable to conference the two bills and the 
     House expects to take up the Senate bill in a matter of days. 
     As a result, I am looking to the Department to clarify some 
     remaining areas of ambiguity in the Senate's legislation. 
     Accordingly, I ask that the Department provide answers to the 
     following questions:
       1. It is my understanding that the preemption provision is 
     to take effect on the date of enactment of this Act. Absent 
     such clarifying language in this bill, I would like 
     assurances from you that you understand the above to be the 
     intent of Congress and that you would indeed interpret the 
     language to mean as such.
       2. After reading the text of the bill, I had serious 
     concerns over what limitations existed as far as what can be 
     required in the actual disclosure. I was directed to look at 
     section 292 regarding applicability. As it was explained to 
     me, that section is meant to limit the application of the 
     disclosure requirement only to the presence of the 
     bioengineered food or ingredient. The language seems somewhat 
     unclear. Can you confirm that the Department would have no 
     authority beyond requiring disclosure of the presence of a 
     bioengineered food or ingredient? Do the same limitations 
     apply to the content of the text or symbol options for 
     disclosure?
       3. In response to the study required by Sec. 293(c), the 
     Secretary ``shall provide additional and comparable options 
     to access the bioengineering disclosure.'' Does this 
     provision direct the Secretary to provide a means of 
     accessing the disclosure (e.g. paying to install land-line 
     phones in supermarkets, purchasing and donating mobile phones 
     for customers to able access QR codes, etc)? Does this 
     provision limit the Department's authority, simply providing 
     additional disclosure options comparable to those enumerated 
     in Sec. 293(b)(2)(D)?
       4. There appears to be overlap between the new authorities 
     and limitations on authorities conferred upon the Secretary 
     and existing authorities. For instance, while this bill 
     specifies that there is no new recall authority, the 
     Department already has recall authority. Is it your 
     understanding that such authorities cannot be used in the 
     context of bioengineered food disclosure unless the use is 
     specifically authorized by this bill?
       Finally, the Senate bill provides no funding to implement 
     the mandatory labeling program. I would be remiss if! did not 
     point out that I, along with all parties with whom I have 
     conferred, expect this program to be implemented by the 
     Department using funds not otherwise dedicated to ensuring 
     the safety of our nation's food supply.
       Thank you for your willingness to work with me on this 
     matter. Again, given the short timeframe, a prompt response 
     to the above questions would be appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                               K. Michael Conaway,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                   U.S. Department of Agriculture,


                                Office of the General Counsel,

                                     Washington, DC, July 8, 2016.
     Representative Michael Conaway,
     Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Conaway, Thank you for your letter of July 7, 
     2016 inquiring as to various technical aspects of the 
     legislative text of the GMO labeling bill currently pending 
     before the U.S. Senate. The United States Department of 
     Agriculture (USDA), as the lead implementing agency has 
     carefully studied this legislation from legal, program 
     policy, and scientific aspects. I will respond in turn below 
     to the questions raised in your letter.
       1. It is my understanding that the preemption provision is 
     to take effect on the date of enactment of this Act. Absent 
     such clarifying language in this bill, I would like 
     assurances from you that you understand the above to be the 
     intent of Congress and that you would indeed interpret the 
     language to mean as such.
       The preemption provisions in Sections 293(e) and 295 of the 
     Senate bill are triggered upon the date of enactment.
       2. After reading the text of the bill, I had serious 
     concerns over what limitations existed as far as what can be 
     required in the actual disclosure. I was directed to look at 
     section 292 regarding applicability. As it was explained to 
     me, that section is meant to limit the application of the 
     disclosure requirement only to the presence of the 
     bioengineered food or ingredient. The language seems somewhat 
     unclear. Can you confirm that the Department would have no 
     authority beyond requiring disclosure of the presence of a 
     bioengineered food or ingredient? Do the same limitations 
     apply to the content of the text or symbol options for 
     disclosure?
       The Section 293 of the Senate bill only authorizes the 
     Secretary to require disclosure pertaining to the presence of 
     bioengineered food.
       3. In response to the study required by Sec. 293(c), the 
     Secretary ``shall provide additional and comparable options 
     to access the bioengineering disclosure.'' Does this 
     provision direct the Secretary to provide a means of 
     accessing the disclosure (e.g. paying to install land-line 
     phones in supermarkets, purchasing and donating mobile phones 
     for customers to be able access QR codes, etc.)? Does this 
     provision limit the Secretary's authority, simply providing 
     additional disclosure options comparable to those enumerated 
     in Sec. 293(b)(2)(D)?
       Section 293(c) of the Senate bill calls for a study to be 
     conducted subsequent to enactment to determine if there are 
     technological or other barriers to accessing the electronic 
     disclosure. If the Secretary determines that barriers exist, 
     the bill requires the Secretary to offer other comparable 
     means of disclosing bioengineered foods. The Senate bill does 
     not provide any new authority to provide equipment, funding, 
     or services to assist in accessing the electronic disclosure.
       4. There appears to be overlap between the new authorities 
     and limitations on authorities conferred upon the Secretary 
     and existing authorities. For instance, while this bill 
     specifies that there is no recall authority, the Department 
     already has recall authority. Similarly, the Department has 
     other labeling authority apart from what this bill now 
     grants. Is it your understanding that such authorities cannot 
     be used in the context of bioengineered food disclosure 
     unless the use is specifically authorized by this bill?
       As an initial matter, the Secretary does not have authority 
     to mandate a recall of meat, poultry or egg products. The 
     Senate bill does not present avenues to utilize recall for 
     the purposes of implementing the disclosure provisions of 
     this bill.
       If needed, my team and our USDA programmatic and scientific 
     experts are available to discuss any aspects of the 
     legislation in greater detail at your request. Please do not 
     hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                 ______
                                 
                         (For Jeffrey M. Prieto, General Counsel).

  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, advances in biotechnology are key to the 
future of agriculture and to ensuring the world has an adequate and 
stable supply of food. Those advances can only be maintained if we 
preserve interstate commerce while turning the page on a debate that 
has unnecessarily maligned this lifesaving technology.
  I stand in support of this bill and encourage my colleagues to vote 
``yes.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill we are considering today, S. 764, recognizes 
consumers' demand to know more about their food by directing USDA to 
create a national, mandatory genetically engineered food labeling 
program.
  My colleagues may remember that almost a year ago, this Chamber 
passed legislation to establish a voluntary labeling program. I still 
believe a voluntary label is best, but, frankly, if we are going to 
address this issue--and, as the chairman said, we are out of time--we 
need to work with the Senate. This is the compromise that was reached 
and, in my opinion, is probably the only alternative that is available 
at this point.
  Science tells us that foods and ingredients from genetically 
engineered crops are safe to eat. This technology

[[Page H4935]]

allows farmers to protect natural resources and provide an abundant 
food supply.
  Unfortunately, there is a lot of public confusion about these issues, 
but labeling products is really more about marketing than any safety 
concerns that people have. This legislation is needed to avoid a 
situation where 50 States set up 50 different labels, which would only 
create confusion for consumers, farmers, and food companies.
  News reports indicate that Vermont's labeling law, which went into 
effect July 1, has already led to the loss of some 3,000 products from 
store shelves. This legislation would rectify this problem while 
addressing the law's shortcoming.
  For example, the Vermont law exempts processed food products 
containing meat from labeling. So cheese pizza would be labeled, but 
pepperoni pizza would not. That doesn't make any sense. S. 764 closes 
this loophole, requiring an additional 25,000 food products to meet new 
labeling requirements.
  I am also pleased that USDA will be responsible for implementing and 
enforcing this program. They have the expertise to do this. They have 
shown this with the labeling that they did for the successful National 
Organic Program.
  I would also like to note that S. 764 received strong bipartisan 
support in the Senate and more than 1,000 farm and food organizations, 
including the American Farm Bureau Federation, Grocery Manufacturers 
Association, and Organic Trade Association, and others are calling for 
passage.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a good compromise. It is 
another example of what the Agriculture Committee has consistently done 
so well. No one gets everything they want, but at the end of the day, I 
believe this is a bill that will provide the transparency consumers 
crave while at the same time allow continued innovation in food 
production.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
his hard work in getting us to where we are today.
  I want to give a special thanks to Mike Pompeo, who helped craft this 
legislation that, over a year ago in the House, 275 Republicans and 
Democrats voted on a bill to establish a voluntary nationwide program 
that would give consumers access to the information that they have 
requested about the food that they are actually consuming. This bill 
would have protected advancements in food production and innovation and 
ended the patchwork of State laws threatening our interstate commerce.
  I was extremely disappointed to see that a small group of Members 
from the other body blocked this commonsense, bipartisan legislation to 
protect vital agricultural technology that has been proven time and 
time again by science to be safe.
  I want to ensure that Americans have access to affordable food--and 
this bill would have done that--and to help address our world's hunger 
needs that biotechnology can only do in the future.
  Unfortunately, this process has stalled for months. Congress was not 
able to act before Vermont's law went into effect on July 1. Just 
having one State alter the law--their law--would provide a drastic, 
drastic negative impact on producers in my district.
  Despite what you may hear today, Mr. Speaker, this is not, and never 
will be, a movement for people to know more about what is in their 
food. This is a movement by people who want you to pay more for food 
using practices that are elite, not readily available, and expensive to 
the hard-working families in this country. These activists have 
publicly acknowledged their objective is to stigmatize a safe and 
valuable tool for America's farmers and ranchers.
  If leaders of this movement in Vermont were so pure in their motives, 
they would not have exempted processed dairy foods, which excludes GMO 
labeling of a little ice cream company that operates in Vermont. I say, 
if ice cream from Illinois ought to have a label in Vermont, the 
environmentally conscious ice cream company from Vermont ought to 
follow the same rule.
  While I still believe the voluntary approach is the correct course of 
action, I am supporting this legislation. The clock has run out. My 
producers need certainty. An interstate commerce nightmare will shortly 
pursue if we don't pass this bill.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Maine (Ms. Pingree).
  Ms. PINGREE. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a complicated solution to a simple problem. 
Consumers do have the right to know what is in their food, but the 
problem is that, right now, when you pick up a box of cereal or a bag 
of rice in the grocery store, you don't know if you are buying 
something with GMO ingredients in it. The solution is simple: list GMO 
ingredients on the back of the package in the ingredient list in plain 
English.
  It is a solution that 64 other countries around the world have 
already adopted. Most of Europe, Japan, Russia, even China, all require 
a simple, on-package label that anyone can read. But this bill fails to 
take that obvious, simple step toward transparency. Instead, it calls 
for a QR code on the label, which would require a smartphone and a 
special app and a good cell signal to translate. A complicated solution 
to a simple problem.
  To be clear, knowing what is in the package does not determine the 
safety or health of GMO ingredients. It is about the consumers' right 
to know so they can make that decision for themselves.
  I am voting against this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Newhouse).
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding.

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for S. 764, the Senate-
passed biotechnology labeling legislation that we are considering 
today.
  Without enactment of this legislation today, right now, we will 
continue to see the emergence of an incompatible patchwork of State 
laws, like the one that took effect in Vermont just 2 weeks ago.
  As a farmer myself, I can tell you with some authority that if these 
State laws, with their conflicting definitions and labeling 
requirements, are allowed to take effect, it will increase the cost of 
production and compliance for farmers as well as food producers.
  This, in turn, will drive up grocery bills for American families by 
hundreds, even thousands of dollars. Mr. Speaker, I believe that is an 
unacceptable and unconscionable outcome to inflict on the American 
people.
  To be clear, I don't think this bill is perfect. It is far from it. 
It is filled with ambiguous statements and, in many places, offers 
little guidance to USDA on how to best implement the bill's provisions.
  I am also disappointed the Senate waited until the very last moment, 
imposing this crisis on the House, leaving us with only two options: 
either act on this imperfect bill or let the American people suffer.
  Mr. Speaker, let the record reflect that the House did its job. It 
passed a biotech labeling bill for the Senate's consideration an entire 
year ago.
  Generally, when we are talking about food labeling, it is for health 
and safety purposes. I believe people have a right to know what it is 
they are eating. But today we find ourselves in a place to require 
mandatory labeling for agriculture products that are 100 percent safe.
  With my reservations noted, passing this bill is the right thing to 
do. It will establish a meaningful national standard for biotech 
labeling that will prevent an unworkable patchwork of conflicting State 
laws. It will provide consumers with information they want. And, 
finally, it will create an environment where farmers and researchers 
can continue to do their work and develop new food varieties that are 
healthier, more abundant, and more pest- and disease-resistant, and 
allow us to continue to feed our Nation and the world.
  I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the esteemed

[[Page H4936]]

ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would agree with one of the earlier speakers. It would 
be confusing for consumers to have 50 different State standards. There 
is a simple solution, but it is not what is before us today: a simple, 
forthright disclosure in plain English.
  For instance, this was obtained out of a House vending machine just 
today. It was distributed by Mars. We are all familiar with M&Ms. 
Partially produced with genetic engineering.
  Wow, that wasn't too hard, was it?
  I think that is what we should be doing here today, instead of 
saying: Oh, we are going to maybe have one of three ways of doing it, 
and one of them will be a QR code.
  Well, this doesn't have any QR codes on it, so I won't get my QR 
reader out. So the average American will be in the grocery store 
pulling out their iPhone and they are going to have hope there is a 
good signal in there and they are going to read that. That is 
ridiculous.
  Sixty-four countries require this. The last time we debated this, I 
brought in a Hershey's bar wrapper. It had a little nice American flag 
on it. Made in America. Contains GMOs. That is the version they sell in 
64 other countries, but they can't do it here. They say you can't do it 
here. It is too expensive. We will have to change the labels.
  Well, M&M's just changed the labels. And now, with what you are doing 
today, they will probably change it back and take off the words that 
say ``partially produced with genetic engineering,'' because they won't 
have to do that anymore.

                              {time}  0945

  This is not about passing judgment on the safety or the science 
behind genetic engineering. It is to say that 90 percent of the 
American people want to know what is in their food. They want to know 
it has Blue 1, Lake Yellow 6, Red 40, corn syrup, dextrin, corn starch, 
peanuts, milk, soy, oh, and partially produced with genetic 
engineering. That is not too hard. That is what the American people 
want. But you are going to deny them that.
  On any other day, I would hear my Republican colleagues say we're for 
states' rights. Well, now we are just about to preempt the States 
because, if the States do it, it will become confusing.
  Well, how about we just have a national standard, plain and simple, 
plain English, so that American consumers will know. It is not too 
hard, and it is very sad that we have come to this point.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Pompeo), who has been involved with this process for a long 
time.
  Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the farmers and constituents in my district 
and across the country, I rise in support of S. 764 today.
  Over, now, what amounts to almost 3 years, Representatives and 
Senators from both parties have been diligently working on a solution 
to prevent a disastrous, statewide patchwork of food labeling laws from 
taking shape and causing chaos throughout our Nation's food supply 
chain.
  As the proud sponsor of H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food 
Labeling Act, which passed the House almost 1 year ago by a large 
bipartisan majority, I want to thank Senator Roberts and our friends in 
the Senate for building on our legislation and arriving at a solution 
to resolve this matter.
  It is not perfect; it is not exactly the bill that we passed over; 
but without this legislation, inconsistent State-level food labeling 
laws will lead to market disruptions and supply chain complications 
which are simply intolerable for our ranchers and our farmers and those 
attempting to feed the world. It would not only harm agriculture 
communities, but it would have resulted in higher prices at the grocery 
store for hardworking Kansans and people all across our country.
  I am extremely proud of the coalition that we have all built. Our 
committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Agriculture Committee 
have worked hard to get to this day. From Coffeyville to Colby, Kansans 
need a workable solution, and this legislation will do that trick.
  We couldn't have gotten here without the massive support I have 
received from all across Kansas, people like Rich Felts, the president 
of the Kansas Farm Bureau, and Stacey Forshee, who came and helped me 
at the most difficult times in making this legislation work. She is a 
mother and a farmer from Cloud County, Kansas. Mick Rausch, a good 
friend and farmer in Sedgwick County and head of the Sedgwick County 
Farm Bureau. Max Tjaden and his wife, Anne, worked diligently to help 
make this legislation come into being. Kent Winter, Leslie Kauffman, 
Tom Tunnel, Philip Bradley, Matt Perrier, from the Kansas Livestock 
Association, Dennis Hupe, and Raylen Phelon, all were part of making 
this day occur.
  It will be better for Kansans; it will be better for Americans; and 
America will now have the capacity to use biotechnology to continue to 
feed that next billion people and solve the incredible hunger risk that 
faces our globe.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, S. 764, well, we can demonize the work of 
Congress on a regular basis and, unfortunately, sometimes we are our 
own worst enemies. I, on the other hand, feel that S. 764 is an example 
of Congress getting it right. This is a big country, a lot of diverse 
opinions about what we should and shouldn't be doing.
  I am a farmer and I am a veterinarian, a man of science. I am 
concerned, very concerned, much like my good colleague and friend from 
Washington State on the other side of the aisle, that there is a 
campaign of misinformation and disinformation about the health and 
safety of American food. I will stack American farmers and producers up 
against anyone in the world for producing the healthiest and safest 
food for American consumers.
  This is a hard-fought compromise--hard-fought, very hard-fought. I 
was on the Ag Committee when we started this discussion. A lot of 
people want to know what is in their food, they say. Well, that is why 
we have ingredient labeling so, as my good colleague and friend from 
Oregon talked about, you can read what is on the label that might be 
important to you in terms of allergies, safety information, things that 
might actually affect your health and welfare.
  Genetic engineering has been around for centuries. As a man of 
science, I will tell you, it is a lot safer to do it in a laboratory 
than out in the field where you have mutations that you can't control 
that might actually be detrimental to your health and safety. In the 
laboratory, you can control a great deal of that.
  And lost in this discussion is what genetic engineering biotechnology 
has done for the people of this world. I remember not too many years 
ago--I am a little older--where we were worried about feeding the 
world's population. Back in 1965, 1966, there was concern: Do we have 
enough arable land? Is the food going to be nutritious?
  A lot of people in other countries without conducive climates can't 
raise their own food. In this country, we can, and, through science and 
engineering, we have created more nutritious crops, crops that can grow 
in bad environments. We can now do no-till because we have agents that 
will control weeds and pests.
  If you are concerned about climate change, you ought to be strongly 
in favor of this bill--strongly in favor of this bill. This is less use 
of some of the very agents that some of my friends on my side of the 
aisle are concerned about.
  Having said that, I am from Oregon. We are a transparency State. We 
want to know as much as we can about everything--our election 
processes, our environment, and, apparently, our food.
  The Senate has come up with a compromise. I liked our House bill, but 
they have come up with a compromise. We now have labeling for GMO. We 
actually have a definition in this bill of what GMO is so the consumer 
is protected. Again, it is not a patchwork of regulations around the 
country. Now we have a standard that the consumer can take to the bank 
and understand.

[[Page H4937]]

  The idea that people don't have cell phones is ludicrous. I have had 
people in pretty tough situations in my district, don't have a whole 
heck of a lot, but they have got a cell phone. They know how to use it, 
get the apps and make sure they can understand what is in their food.
  I think this should be an hour we celebrate. The other side has to, 
finally, I hope, accept victory. We have a mandatory labeling for GMO. 
This is a great compromise.
  Democrats, Republicans, Senate, and House, let's accept and vote for 
S. 764 for the American consumer and the American farmer.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the previous 
speaker's comments.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a prime example of why the 
American people are so frustrated with Congress. This is a deeply, 
deeply flawed bill.
  We are told that this is a mandatory GMO labeling bill, but the truth 
is not really. This bill is a deception. When people think of labels, 
they expect something that is easily identifiable, that is clear, like 
a written label. That is not a controversial idea.
  This calls for a so-called Quick Response Code, whatever that may be, 
that is confusing and can only be accessed by using a smartphone with 
Internet access--never mind that many Americans don't have smartphones 
and many supermarkets don't even get service, thereby making it 
impossible to get information on GMOs and keeping consumers in the dark 
about what is in their food.
  But let's be honest. This is exactly what some in Big Industry want. 
They want people to be confused. They don't want people to have access 
to information. And when Big Industry speaks, Congress not only 
listens, Congress rolls over and gives Big Industry whatever it wants.
  And let's be clear about another thing. This debate is not about the 
science regarding GMOs. It is not about whether you love GMOs or hate 
GMOs. I consume GMOs. My kids consume GMOs. But I still believe that 
every consumer is entitled to know whether the food they buy contains 
GMOs. That is what this debate is about. It is about transparency.
  And for those who think that this ends the debate, that this is it, I 
have a prediction: You are wrong. People are going to fight to demand 
for clear, mandatory GMO labeling. They have a right to know what is in 
their food. The overwhelming majority of the American people, Democrats 
and Republicans, all favor clear, mandatory GMO labeling.
  I have got a radical idea. Why don't we give them what they want? Why 
don't we just put it on the package? It doesn't cost any more. This 
idea that this is an effort that will raise food prices is ridiculous.
  This convoluted, complicated labeling system outlined in this bill, 
if that is not going to raise food prices, then a simple, in plain 
English listing on food that says ``this contains GMOs'' will certainly 
not raise food prices.
  Mr. Speaker, sooner or later we are going to get clear, mandatory GMO 
labeling. I prefer sooner; and, therefore, I urge my colleagues to 
reject this bill, and let's give the American consumer what they want.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would point out to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that there are other 
options besides the QR code with respect to complying and getting the 
information for those few consumers that really, really want to know 
this information; they can get it.
  This bill requires that the Secretary, within 1 year--actually, the 
rule is already written--within 1 year to conduct a study to make sure 
that consumers are really, in fact, getting the information they want 
in the ways that they want to get it, and then the Secretary will have 
ways of proposing additional comparable options for this issue.
  The gentleman is misleading in the sense that there are other options 
to make this happen; and if it is not working, the Secretary of the 
Department of Agriculture will be able to complete that study.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).
  Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Speaker, people shouldn't have to jump through hoops 
to know what is in their food. That is really what this issue is all 
about.
  When we go the grocery store, the very first thing that you do is you 
pick up whatever it is you are looking at and you read the label to see 
if it contains products or ingredients or things that you want to eat 
or that you want to feed your family.
  Nearly 90 percent of Americans have called for this clear, simple, 
direct labeling of foods that have been either genetically engineered 
or modified. They support this very simple concept that we have a right 
to know what is in the food we eat; yet the GMO bill that we are voting 
on today is very misleading.
  Proponents will say that this is a labeling bill, but it is not 
really about the right to know. It actually creates an illusion of 
transparency, while making things more difficult for consumers, not 
easier.
  This is, as we have heard earlier, exactly what people hate about 
Washington, that we pretend to solve a problem when, actually, we are 
just making things harder and more confusing for the American people.
  If this bill is really, truly intended to expand consumers' right to 
know, why not require a simple, uniform food labeling standard that is 
clear, straightforward, and easy to read?
  Instead of doing that, this bill creates a system of electronic 
codes, symbols, and text that are intentionally confusing to consumers, 
making them work harder to try to get access to information that should 
be readily available to them. Additionally, this bill lacks any 
enforcement measure to hold companies accountable if they don't comply 
with labeling requirements.
  This bill has raised concerns from the FDA over the bill's narrow 
definition of genetic engineering that leaves common foods without any 
labeling requirement at all.
  So let's stop pretending that S. 764 does anything but create 
confusion, making it harder for the American people to know what is in 
their food. This is exactly the opposite of what they are calling for.
  Sixty-four countries around the world have already required labeling 
of genetically modified foods, like the EU, Australia, Japan, and many 
others, and this is what we are calling for today. For here, in the 
United States, we must have one uniform national labeling standard that 
is simple, clear, and makes it easier for consumers to make their own 
informed decisions about the food that they are eating.
  I have cosponsored H.R. 913, introduced by my colleague, Pete 
DeFazio, which would do just that. The bill passed by the Senate and 
the bill before us today is a bad bill that does not serve the best 
interests of the American people. That is why I strongly oppose this 
bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, a little background on this bill.
  This started in Vermont, where there was a strong citizen movement to 
have the right to know what was in their food. It was not a battle 
about the science of GMOs or about whether it was healthy or not. It 
was really based on the proposition that for a consumer who wishes to 
know what is in their food, whether it is the number of calories or 
whether it is GMO-produced, they had a right to know. It is as simple 
as that.
  The irony here is that the pushback has been from folks who are 
advocating the benefits of GMOs. If they are so great--and I am not 
disputing what some of their benefits may be--why not brag about it by 
putting it on the label? Why hide it? It really doesn't make a lot of 
sense.
  In Vermont, we had a bipartisan vote in the Senate 28-2 and a strong, 
bipartisan vote in the House that was based upon the right of 
Vermonters who wanted to know whether there were GMOs to have that 
knowledge.

[[Page H4938]]

  There was a lot of pushback initially by industry, but some of the 
industry has kind of got it right: if the consumer wants to know, let 
them know. Kellogg's and Campbell Soup both now have labeling on their 
products and let the consumers know. What is really the big deal?
  Now we have a bill from the Senate that, frankly, when you look at 
it, it is kind of dumb, because what it does is give options on how you 
``label.'' You can use English, where right on the label you can read 
``GMOs'' or not. That makes sense.
  But then there is another mechanism where there is, like, a barcode. 
You have to go to the store with your iPhone, scan the barcode--by the 
way, when you are grocery shopping, you are trying to get home, get 
dinner on, you have kids that are trying to go to a school practice. 
And you are supposed to stop and scan the barcode and go to a Web site 
to see whether that can of black bean soup has GMOs or not?
  The other option you can have is you can, in the middle of the store, 
dial a 1-800 number, get a call center, probably overseas, and talk to 
somebody and ask them whether this can of soup that you are holding 
5,000 miles away from the person you are talking to contains GMOs or 
not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. WELCH. So we have this situation where, in the Senate bill that 
we are now considering, there is an acknowledgment that there should be 
a label, but it contains a label that is impossible to read.
  So if there is an acknowledgment about the right of a consumer to 
have access to the information, why not give them the information in 
plain and simple English? We don't have to do dumb end-arounds in order 
to give consumers the information they are seeking.
  That is the essence of the opposition to this bill. Make it simple, 
keep it simple, and let people know what it is they are buying so they 
can make the decision.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, my good friend just spoke--and he is my 
friend, not the common ``my good friend'' nonsense we typically say 
around here, but the gentleman from Vermont is my friend. And his 
argument would be a bit more forceful if, in fact, the wisdom of the 
Vermont legislature that he touted hadn't exempted all those State-
produced products, like Ben and Jerry's ice cream, from the important 
label that folks who eat ice cream, apparently, in Vermont don't need 
to know.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Texas ready to 
close?
  Mr. CONAWAY. Yes. I have no further speakers.
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Again, this isn't a perfect bill. I think the chairman and I would 
prefer the House bill, but this is a bill that was able to pass the 
Senate. It will get us past this crisis situation that was developed 
because of the Vermont law going into effect.
  It is something that we think is workable and gives the USDA the 
authority to not only develop this system but also, for the first time, 
actually determine what this means. Because that is one of the big 
issues, that as you talk to 10 different people about what a GMO is, 
you get 10 different answers. So what is going to happen here is we are 
going to have a situation where we will define what this means. That is 
a big step forward.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I yield back, I want to thank everybody involved 
in this debate, particularly my team and the hard work they did.
  The bill that we passed a year ago with much labor and much work 
wound up not being the answer that we all wanted. I think we got 275 of 
our colleagues to vote for it a year ago.
  There have been a lot of efforts in this regard. I want to thank our 
team for doing that. I want to thank the ranking member and his team 
for the hard work they have been doing.
  I appreciate the civility of the debate this morning and look forward 
to passage of the bill shortly.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 
764 when it comes to the floor later on.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, today this body voted on S.764, compromise 
legislation that provides a bipartisan solution to the state and local 
laws mandating different requirements for the labeling of genetically 
engineered (GE) ingredients in foods. While I was not present to vote 
on this legislation, had I been, I would have voted in favor of the 
bill.
  It is a reality that many of our crops are genetically modified and 
it is important that food companies disclose ingredient information. S. 
764 is a compromise and provides a common sense federal solution to a 
patchwork system that has the potential to disrupt the food supply 
chain by having certain labeling requirements in some states but not 
others, with the increased compliance costs ultimately being passed 
along to the consumer. The bill institutes a national mandatory 
labeling standard for foods that contain genetically engineered crops, 
with several options for how food manufacturers can label their 
products.
  Mr. Speaker, it is for this reason that I support the disclosure of 
ingredient information and would have voted in support of this bill. I 
will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that no consumer is left in 
the dark regarding the ingredients of their food.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I will vote 
in opposition to S. 764, on labeling requirements for genetically-
engineered foods. While I recognize this legislation, with a mandatory 
labeling requirement, is a step forward from the DARK Act that passed 
the House last year, it falls far short of the comprehensive labeling 
standard consumers need.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  July 14, 2016, on page H4938, the following appeared: Mrs. 
MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker,
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Mrs. CAROLYN B. 
MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker,


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  More than ever, Americans want to know what goes into the food they 
eat, and have concerns about the presence of genetically-modified 
ingredients. Rather than clear, sensible labels for these ingredients, 
this bill would allow manufacturers to use QR codes and other 
technologies to satisfy label requirements. These measures would shift 
a heavy burden to consumers to scan the code with a smartphone or other 
device and read about the food contents on a website rather than the 
package they hold in their hands. We need understandable, accessible 
labels that allow Americans to pick up a food product and easily 
understand its contents.
  That is why I join with leading consumer groups like Consumers Union, 
Center for Food Safety, as well as prominent environmental 
organizations like the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, 
and League of Conservation Voters to oppose this measure.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, I will vote against S. 764, a 
bill that would preempt state genetically modified organism (GMO) 
labeling laws and replace them with a wholly inadequate federal 
standard.
  People should be able to know what they are eating. The bill before 
us today would exempt many genetically engineered (GE) foods from any 
labeling altogether and would preempt pro-consumer state laws, 
including the engineered food labeling laws in Vermont, Connecticut, 
and Maine. I actively supported an effort to pass a GMO labeling law in 
my home state of Oregon, and I continue to support strong state efforts 
to stand up for transparency in the face of federal inadequacy or 
inaction.
  The bill also includes several vague standards, and its labeling 
requirements would allow corporations to decide how to give consumers 
access to GE information, including through the use of a smartphone or 
the internet. Making access to GE labeling information electronic and/
or dependent on a smartphone is not transparent, accessible, or 
available to many Americans.
  S. 764 has been sold as a ``compromise'' because it would require 
some labeling, but these provisions are clearly just a fig leaf We need 
plain language, mandatory, on-package labeling, and until federal law 
protects our right to know what we are eating, the federal government 
should not preempt state efforts to protect and inform their citizens.
  I continue to strongly support federal-level mandatory labeling for 
foods that contain GMOs, and I'm an original cosponsor of Rep. 
DeFazio's Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act (H.R. 913). 
I'll continue pushing for stronger consumer protections when it comes 
to food safety and will oppose any attempts to undermine these efforts.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, while I am fully supportive of a national 
standard to label genetically modified (GMO) foods, I am unable to 
support S. 764, the GMO Food Labeling Requirements bill.
  Although this bill takes an important step toward federal preemption, 
it does so at the expense of consumer transparency and safety.
  For example, S. 764 falls short of providing a robust definition of 
``bioengineering'', which will exempt the majority of GMO foods from

[[Page H4939]]

being properly labeled. Additionally, this bill will hurt the most 
vulnerable among us. The provision to include ``digital labeling'' will 
withhold valuable information about GMO foods from rural, low-income 
and elderly Americans who are less likely to own a smart phone or have 
access to the internet.
  That's over 50 percent of rural and 65 percent of elderly people who 
will not be able to access the consumer information they need.
  Mr. Speaker, American consumers deserve the best information 
available when it comes to food choices that they make for themselves 
and their families.
  We must continue to address this vital issue because all consumers 
deserve the right to know what is in their food and how it's grown.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Graves of Louisiana). All time for 
debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 822, the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the motion by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Conaway).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WELCH. 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 and the 
order of the House of today, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________