[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12160-12171]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1599, SAFE AND ACCURATE FOOD 
  LABELING ACT OF 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1734, 
       IMPROVING COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUALS REGULATION ACT OF 2015

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 369 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 369

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1599) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act with respect to food produced from, containing, 
     or consisting of a bioengineered organism, the labeling of 
     natural foods, and for other purposes. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Agriculture now 
     printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-24 
     modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1734) to amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to 
     encourage recovery and beneficial use of coal combustion 
     residuals and establish requirements for the proper 
     management and disposal of coal combustion residuals that are 
     protective of human health and the environment. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in 
     order except those printed in part C of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

                              {time}  1230

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Loudermilk). The gentleman from Alabama 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BYRNE. House Resolution 369 provides a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 1734, the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals 
Regulation Act of 2015, and H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food 
Labeling Act of 2015.
  Mr. Speaker, when I am back in southwest Alabama for district travel, 
I spend a lot of time visiting with small-business owners and holding 
townhall meetings. At almost every event I hold, someone mentions how 
regulations are having a negative impact on them, their business, and 
their employees. These regulations cover everything from energy to 
health care to tax policy. Too many of my constituents are drowning in 
red tape, and they are forced to spend too much money and time 
complying with burdensome regulations.
  Now, I get it; a lot of people in Washington think that they know 
best. These bureaucrats get in a room, and they start scheming on how 
they can solve all these problems, and our answer is almost always that 
we need more rules and regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, this is entirely the wrong approach. This kind of top-
down, Washington knows best strategy is not working, and it is putting 
a real burden on my constituents in Alabama and people all over the 
country. That is why this rule allows for the consideration of two 
bills that are focused on simplifying the regulatory process in two 
very important areas, energy and agriculture.
  Being from Alabama, I know a thing or two about these topics. Anyone 
who has ever spent time in lower Alabama during July or August knows 
just how hot it can get, so that means families down there have to 
spend a pretty penny on their power bills during these summer months.
  Well, under the Obama administration's EPA, regulations on the energy 
sector have skyrocketed. The costs from these regulations are most 
certainly passed on to the consumer in the form of higher power bills, 
and the compliance burdens associated with these regulations are making 
it harder and harder for utilities to deliver reliable power to their 
customers.
  That is why the current enforcement structure of EPA's rule on coal 
combustion residuals, or CCRs, is so concerning. While most of us were 
pleased that the EPA decided to regulate CCR as a nonhazardous solid 
waste, we are left with civil suits in place of commonsense enforcement 
measures to make sure the industry is complying with EPA standards. 
This creates uncertainty among industry and a patchwork of 
interpretations by various courts around the country.
  The EPA rule also creates some unintended consequences when it comes 
to

[[Page 12161]]

Federal and State jurisdiction. That is why the Improving Coal 
Combustion Residuals Regulation Act empowers States and allows them to 
establish permit programs to meet or exceed regulatory requirements set 
forth in the EPA's final rule.
  It only makes sense that each State, with their unique topography and 
geographic conditions, should be able to set the permitting 
requirements most appropriate for their conditions in order to meet 
these EPA standards. In fact, States already govern the disposal of 
solid and hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery 
Act, or RCRA, and have done so since 1976.
  It is important to point out that these regulatory reforms do not 
change the minimum requirements under the EPA rule, which are designed 
to protect human health and the environment. This legislation actually 
codifies these standards and sets them as the baseline for State 
permitting programs nationwide.
  Mr. Speaker, I expect that some of my friends on the other side are 
going to argue that this legislation, in some way, weakens standards. 
Let me tell you what will result in weakened standards, allowing 
different Federal judges from all across the country to decide how the 
law should be interpreted and how standards should be set, despite the 
fact that these judges have no real background in regulatory matters 
regarding these sorts of hazardous wastes, these sorts of wastes at 
all.
  Instead of that flawed system, let's allow States to create their own 
permitting system, which must comply with the EPA standard. By getting 
frivolous civil lawsuits out of the way, estimates project that this 
legislation will protect around 316,000 jobs. If my colleagues on the 
other side think that this is a waste of time, then I want them to tell 
that to these 316,000 families.
  H.R. 1734 is a good bill that makes some very sensible reforms that 
simplify the process for the safe management and disposal of coal ash 
while providing a realistic enforcement mechanism for existing 
environmental standards.
  The second bill covered by this rule, the Safe and Accurate Food 
Labeling Act, deals with agriculture. Now, agriculture is the top 
industry in my home State of Alabama, with over 500,000 jobs. I have 
heard from a number of farmers who support this bipartisan legislation.
  H.R. 1599 will provide much needed clarity and uniformity in the 
labeling of food products containing genetically engineered plants or 
ingredients. This commonsense legislation is supported by almost 500 
associations and farmers from Hawaii to Maine.
  The current regulatory system is a patchwork of State and local 
regulations, which create unnecessary costs among consumers and food 
manufacturers without really helping to increase consumer awareness. In 
fact, a study by Cornell University found that food prices could rise 
for American families by as much as $500 a year if something isn't 
changed.
  This legislation would streamline the labeling process and create a 
national, voluntary food labeling standard for products derived from 
GMOs. By doing so, America's farmers and food manufacturers won't be 
burdened with inconsistent and costly regulations.
  This legislation isn't just good for producers and farmers; it 
creates a uniform system driven by consumer demand. Under this bill, 
consumers will be able to easily identify products and make their own 
decisions about what products are best for them and their families.
  Mr. Speaker, these bills are both about reducing the regulatory 
burden and simplifying the regulatory process. From consumers to small-
business owners to rural electric cooperatives to family farmers, 
people shouldn't have to spend precious time and money figuring out how 
to comply with regulations.
  Instead, here in Congress, we should be focused on getting government 
out of the way and allowing the American people to actually do their 
job, and that is what both of these bills do.
  This is a fair rule, and I urge its support. The coal ash rule allows 
for six amendments, all but one of them Democrat amendments. The food 
labeling rule allows for four amendments, all of them Democrat 
amendments, including one amendment that is a complete substitute for 
the bill.
  The Rules Committee has worked very hard to make a very fair 
amendment process, and I believe that is exactly what this bill has 
done.
  I do urge support for this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Byrne) for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I rise in very strong opposition to this rule, which provides for 
consideration of H.R. 1599, the so-called Safe and Accurate Food 
Labeling Act, and H.R. 1734, the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals 
Regulation Act.
  This week, we are back on the floor with our twenty-fourth grab bag 
rule, one rule that governs debate for two completely unrelated 
measures. Today, the Republican majority has chosen to group together a 
bill that undermines an EPA rulemaking designed to protect public 
health and our environment with a bill designed to make it harder for 
consumers to know whether or not their food has been produced with 
genetically engineered ingredients.
  Utilizing this kind of rule for two completely separate bills leads 
to disjointed debate. It limits the time that people have to be able to 
talk about these issues, but it is a deliberate attempt by the 
Republican majority to suppress debate. They don't want to bring 
serious issues to the floor, and they certainly don't want serious 
debate, and I regret very much that this has become a pattern.
  I also oppose this rule because neither bill is an open rule. A lot 
of Members, I am sure, have a lot of issues they want to raise on both 
these bills, but they are not going to have that opportunity. The Rules 
Committee denied a whole bunch of amendments on the GMO labeling bill 
last night in committee.
  I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for 
open debate and an open process and reject this. Send a message to the 
Republican leadership that enough is enough.
  Mr. Speaker, with regard to H.R. 1734, the so-called Improving Coal 
Combustion Residuals Regulation Act, this bill continues the 
Republicans' antiscience, antienvironment, antipublic health fight. 
There is not a week that goes by that we don't have a bill that seeks 
to try to undermine regulation or rulemaking that is designed to help 
protect the people of this country.
  This bill undercuts EPA's new coal ash rule, putting many communities 
at risk of exposure. Coal ash is highly toxic and needs to be properly 
disposed of, and the devastating health effects from exposure to 
neurotoxins in coal ash--like lead, mercury, and arsenic--are well 
known.
  This bill is just another Republican bill attempting to undermine 
common sense, health, and safety protection from toxic chemicals. The 
American people deserve much better. I am glad the White House has 
issued a veto threat against the bill.
  I include the Statement of Administration Policy in the Record.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


 H.R. 1734--Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act of 2015

        (Rep. McKinley, R-WV, and 44 cosponsors; July 21, 2015)

       The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1734, because it 
     would undermine the protection of public health and the 
     environment provided by the Environmental Protection Agency's 
     (EPA's) December 2014 final rule addressing the risks posed 
     by mismanaged impoundments of coal ash and other coal 
     combustion residuals (CCR). The 2008 failure of a coal ash 
     impoundment in Kingston, Tennessee, and the 2014 coal ash 
     spill into the Dan River in Eden, North Carolina, serve as 
     stark reminders of the need for safe disposal and management 
     of coal ash.
       EPA's rule articulates clear and consistent national 
     standards to protect public health and the environment, 
     prevent contamination of drinking water, and minimize the 
     risk of catastrophic failure at coal ash surface 
     impoundments. H.R. 1734 would, however, substantially weaken 
     these protections. For example, the bill would eliminate 
     restrictions

[[Page 12162]]

     on how close coal ash impoundments can be located to drinking 
     water sources. It also would undermine EPA's requirement that 
     unlined impoundments must close or be retrofitted with 
     protective liners if they are leaking and contaminating 
     drinking water. Further, the bill would delay requirements in 
     EPA's final CCR rule, including structural integrity and 
     closure requirements, for which tailored extensions are 
     already available through EPA's rule and through approved 
     Solid Waste Management Plans.
       While the Administration supports appropriate State program 
     flexibility, H.R. 1734 would allow States to modify or waive 
     critical protective requirements found in EPA's final CCR 
     rule. Specifically, H.R. 1734 authorizes States to implement 
     permit programs that would not meet a national minimum 
     standard of protection and fails to provide EPA with an 
     opportunity to review and approve State permit programs prior 
     to implementation, departing from the long-standing precedent 
     of previously enacted Federal environmental statutes.
       Because it would undercut important national protections 
     provided by EPA's 2014 CCR management and disposal rule, the 
     Administration strongly opposes H.R. 1734. If the President 
     were presented with H.R. 1734 as drafted, his senior advisors 
     would recommend that he veto the bill.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to spend most of my time 
talking about the other bill, which I also strongly oppose, H.R. 1599, 
which they have titled the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015, 
one of the most misnamed pieces of legislation that I think we have 
considered this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe at the center of the debate about this bill is 
Americans' fundamental right to know what is in the food they eat and 
how it is grown. I believe people ought to have the right, plain and 
simple.
  This isn't a debate about the science behind GMOs. That is a separate 
debate. Yet, whether you love GMOs or hate them, you ought to know if 
the food that you are feeding your family is made from them.
  Mr. Speaker, the Food and Drug Administration requires the labeling 
of thousands of ingredients, additives, and processes, many of which 
have nothing to do with safety or nutrition.
  For example, the FDA requires the mandatory labeling of juice when it 
is from concentrate. Food labels are a simple and a reliable way to 
tell people what is in their food and how it is made.
  Americans have told us loud and clear that they want to know what is 
in their food. Poll after poll indicates the widespread support for 
labeling GMOs. A recent poll by the Mellman Group found that 91 percent 
are in favor of labeling with 81 percent saying they strongly prefer 
GMO labeling.
  The support for labeling cuts across party identification, gender, 
age--you name it. As well, three States--Vermont, Maine, and 
Connecticut--have listened to their citizens and have passed laws 
requiring that GMO foods be labeled, and dozens more are considering 
similar initiatives, including my home State of Massachusetts.
  I understand the concern with 50 different States passing 50 
different State labeling laws. I get it. That is why I support 
mandatory GMO labeling. We need a national standard that eliminates 
confusion and puts the American people in charge.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us only adds to the confusion. It 
codifies the existing voluntary labeling system for GMO foods that 
hasn't worked and that hasn't provided consumers the information that 
they want.
  It preempts States from responding to consumer demand and requiring 
GMO labeling, and it invalidates State laws already in place. It 
continues to allow foods that contain GMOs to be labeled as ``natural'' 
despite the fact that 60 percent of Americans believe that ``natural'' 
means GMO-free.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a stack of letters here from a variety of 
organizations that are opposed to H.R. 1599--the National Farmers 
Union--representing family farmers and ranchers across the country.
  They oppose this bill as well as the Consumers Union, the National 
Black Farmers, and 125 CEOs and business leaders from Massachusetts and 
across the country, including Whole Foods Market co-CEO Walter Robb; 
Chipotle CEO and chairman Steve Ells; Clif Bar, Inc., CEO Kevin Cleary; 
Newman's Own Organics cofounder Nell Newman; Panera Bread, Inc., CEO 
Ron Shaich; Patagonia, Inc., CEO Rose Marcario; American Sustainable 
Business Council CEO and cofounder David Levine; Sweetgreen, Inc., 
cofounder Nicolas Jammet; chef and founder of the Think Food Group, 
Jose Andres; Craft Hospitality CEO and well-known chef, Tom Colicchio; 
and many, many, many others.
  The supporters of H.R. 1599 oppose mandatory GMO labeling, claiming 
that GMO labeling would increase food prices for consumers. This is 
just simply untrue. I want to read a section of a letter from the CEO 
of Ben & Jerry's that proves the point:
  ``As an ice cream company that operates in more than 30 countries, 
many of which require mandatory GMO labeling, we are not swayed by 
arguments that mandatory labeling will be expensive. The truth is, we 
regularly make changes, sometimes big, sometimes small, to our 
packaging.''
  He continues:
  ``Every year, we make changes to between 25% and 50% of our 
packaging. Over the last 7 years, we've gone through three full line 
redesigns. In other words, we have changed the packaging on every 
single pint in our product line as a matter of normal business. I can 
tell you unequivocally that changing labels does not require us to 
raise the price of our products. Lots of things impact the cost a 
consumer pays for a pint of Ben & Jerry's. Label changes are not one.''
  Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that adding a label to indicate that a 
product contains GMOs ought to be pretty straightforward.
  So, to the supporters of H.R. 1599, I would simply ask: What are you 
afraid of? Why is giving the American people more information about 
their food such a bad idea?
  Perhaps supporters of keeping the American people in the dark believe 
that, if consumers know that GMOs are in their food, they won't buy it. 
I don't believe that to be the case. I myself consume GMO foods, as 
does my family, and we will continue to do so even if there is a label, 
but that is my choice.
  H.R. 1599 really is a Washington-knows-best approach. I mean, this is 
the epitome of a Washington-knows-best approach. It says, We don't care 
what people want. We don't care what people think. We politicians in 
Washington know best.
  I am going to tell you something. That is why people hate Congress. 
That is why people are frustrated with Congress. They don't think we 
listen.
  Let me suggest to my colleagues a radical idea--and brace yourselves 
because this is a really, really radical idea--give the American people 
what they want.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I was listening to the gentleman's remarks. If he believes that, by 
codifying the EPA regulation that this bill is undermining the EPA, I 
just don't follow that reasoning. That is what this bill does.
  It takes the EPA regulation and it codifies it. It puts it into 
statutory law. It sets it as a minimum, and it allows the State 
regulators who are already regulating solid and hazardous waste to use 
that as a minimum and to go above it.
  Far from undermining the EPA's authority here, far from undermining 
the effort to get a clean environment for the people of America, this 
enhances it by putting it into law and allowing the States to go above 
it if that is what they want to do.
  What this bill really does that is new and is different from what the 
EPA is trying to do is that it takes the enforcement of this away from 
different Federal courts around the country, and it gives it to the 
State regulators, who are already providing this regulation in other 
common areas and who have been since 1976.
  I am a lawyer and have practiced in Federal courts. We have many fine 
Federal district judges around the country, but they are not experts in 
this area. If you bring a lawsuit in their courts, they and their law 
clerks

[[Page 12163]]

will work very hard to make sure that they get it as close to right as 
they can.
  But in not having their experience and their expertise, we are going 
to get a lot of differences. We are going to get a patchwork. Whereas, 
if we go to the State regulators, who are doing it now, we are going to 
get something that makes sense within each of these individual States, 
given their different geographies and topographies and other things 
that we should consider. This coal ash bill does not undermine the law. 
It enhances the law.
  Now, on the food labeling law, we had discussion about this in the 
Rules Committee yesterday. I am a consumer. I go to the store. My wife 
sends me to the store, and she says to get this, this, this, and this. 
She does a lot of studying before I do that, but sometimes I have to 
read the labels.
  Now, imagine that I go to a store where I live in Alabama and that I 
am an hour away from Mississippi and an hour away from Florida. 
Somebody has got to put a product on store shelves up and down the gulf 
coast, and they have got to comply with all three States' regulations 
on what has got to be on the label.
  I am going to pick up a can, and there are going to be all of these 
different disclosure requirements, but they have been put on the same 
can because they have got to make sure they can market it in all of 
these States.
  I have got to figure out what does all of that mean as opposed to 
having one common, uniform disclosure. If somebody chooses not to 
disclose--if a producer of a given food product chooses not to disclose 
whether or not it contains GMOs--I am going to assume that there are. 
If I have a problem with GMOs, I am not going to buy it.
  Five percent of the consumers in America today won't buy GMOs, and 
they are pretty educated consumers. What they are going to do is they 
are going to go into the store and say, ``All right. Who has got GMO 
labeling and who doesn't? If they don't, I am not buying it.''
  If the producers of those foods want to sell something to those 
customers, they had better start taking advantage of what is happening 
through this common rule, this uniform rule, across the country to 
market themselves.
  Far from hurting the consumers, this helps the consumers. That is 
what this bill has tried so very hard to do, and I think they have done 
a good job with it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Newhouse), a member of the Rules Committee and a farmer himself.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. I would like to thank my colleague from Alabama, a 
member of the Rules Committee, as well as joining Mr. McGovern with 
whom we share a Rules Committee assignment.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule that we are considering as 
well as the underlying legislation, both bills, but I would like to 
specifically speak to H.R. 1599, which is, I believe, accurately 
labeled the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. I think, also, I would 
like to talk to the positive impacts that it will have on our Nation's 
food supply.
  Many of you may know that, prior to coming to Congress, I was the 
director of the Washington State Department of Agriculture. Shortly 
after my time at the WSDA, several groups in my home State of 
Washington proposed a ballot initiative, I-522, which would have 
required mandatory labeling of biotech food products or of those using 
ingredients that had biotech ingredients, also referred to as GMOs.
  Now, I opposed I-522 for a couple of reasons but mainly because of 
the impact that we could see it would have on our farmers and on our 
ranchers and on our grocers but, more importantly, on our consumers, 
the families who are making food decisions in the grocery stores, who, 
in the end, would pay higher food prices as a result of this mandatory 
labeling law that was being considered.
  In our State, we have the Washington Research Council, and it 
conducted an independent study, showing that the mandatory food 
labeling of biotech ingredients would cost the average family at 
least--at a minimum--$450 a year in increased food costs. That is 
assuming that Washington was the only jurisdiction to create such a 
law.
  Now, if other States and other cities--other localities--decided to 
follow suit and pass their own laws, such as Seattle or New York or 
Boston or San Francisco or Oregon, food producers would face an 
incredible, unworkable patchwork of legal definitions of what a ``GMO'' 
is and how to label it.
  I can only imagine a food producer having to print, say, 100 
different labels for its products depending on where they were 
destined, where they were to be sold, and the liability they would face 
if, for instance, a box of food labeled for Phoenix ended up in Las 
Vegas or in Los Angeles or in Salt Lake City.
  Many producers are considering stopping or have stopped selling 
products in the State of Vermont, which is the most recent State to 
adopt mandatory labeling standards, because of this increased cost, 
because of the uncertainty and the liability that separate 
jurisdictions would create.
  In my estimation and what the people of my State have said is that 
what we need is a national voluntary label, much like organic, a label 
which gives consumers who want to purchase non-GMO foods the freedom to 
do so, but that will not impose higher costs on producers or consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, critics of this bill, H.R. 1599, unfairly claim it will 
limit the ability of consumers to know what they are purchasing; but 
let me say that that just simply is not the case, that it is not true.
  If you go into a grocery store and want to purchase an organic 
product, that is something that you are easily able to do, and that is 
exactly what this bill will do for GMO foods. It will create a similar 
label.
  So make no mistake. If buying non-GMO is important to any of you as a 
consumer, then you will have every ability to do so when you walk into 
a grocery store and make your purchase.
  You will have the confidence of the United States Department of 
Agriculture's system of making sure that those labels are consistent 
from one State to the other; so you will know what you are buying by 
what that label says.
  Mr. Speaker, the Founders of our Nation gave Congress a tool in our 
Constitution to regulate interstate commerce to prevent the types of 
legal patchworks and market distortions that we are beginning to see on 
this issue.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the rule, to support H.R. 
1599, and protect the Nation's access to safe, affordable food.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the comments from my colleagues from Washington and 
Alabama. Both serve on the Rules Committee with me, and I respect them; 
but I do not think they were paying attention to my speech.
  I am not arguing here for a patchwork of 50 different rules and 
regulations with regard to labeling. What I am saying is that what my 
friends are proposing here, which is voluntary labeling on non-GMO 
products, should be replaced with mandatory GMO labeling across the 
country.
  That is what people want, and that is what this bill would deny. You 
are not only preempting States and telling States that they have no 
role in this debate and you are not only preempting the will of the 
American people here, but you are setting a standard here so that 
people will be kept in the dark.

                              {time}  1300

  I want uniformity, but I want more information, and this idea that 
somehow labeling will increase food prices is just baseless; it is 
baseless. There are plenty of things that increase the prices that we 
pay at the grocery store--transportation costs and ingredients costs, 
those all add to the cost--but GMO labeling is not one of them. In 
study after study, we have seen that a simple GMO disclaimer on food 
packaging will not increase food prices.
  I just read to you the letter from the CEO of Ben & Jerry's. Food 
companies change their labels all the time to

[[Page 12164]]

make new claims. All food companies will soon have to change their 
labels to make important changes to the nutrition fact panel.
  Adding a few words on the back of the food package about genetic 
engineering will not impact the cost of making food. That is just not a 
real argument; that is just baseless. Let's focus on what this bill 
really does. It basically keeps the American people in the dark about 
what is in their food.
  I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the 
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the 
speakers who preceded me, and the gentleman from Massachusetts is 
absolutely right. The simple solution is to adopt a uniform national 
mandatory standard that would give that information on the label. 
Eighty-eight percent of the American people who regularly are polled 
say: We would like that information on the label.
  It will not add cost any more than printing ``red dye no. 2'' on the 
label adds cost to the label. It will add no cost. It would have a 
uniform national standard. You wouldn't have to worry about a 
proliferation of the States, and then you wouldn't have to contradict 
yourselves as Republicans when, every day, you are down here screaming 
about states' rights, and now, when States do something you don't like: 
Oh, my God, states' rights, out of here.
  It is not just the labeling. Yeah, there are three blue States that 
have labeled, and you don't care if you preempt their laws--got that; 
but there are a lot of red States and purple States and blue States 
where the departments of agriculture have recognized the reality of GMO 
and the potential pollution of conventional non-GMO and organic crops.
  We had a little incident in Oregon where all our wheat export was 
stopped because GMO-modified wheat was found in the middle of a very 
large conventional farm. Until they could figure out how it got there 
and how much pollution there might be or cross-contamination of 
Oregon's huge wheat exports, they were all stopped because 64 countries 
around the world require this labeling, and somehow, the U.S. 
conglomerates who make food and export processed food are able to label 
over there.
  I have a Hershey's label from the EU. I will show it tomorrow. It's 
beautiful. It's got an American flag on it, made in the USA, contains 
GMOs. They can do it over there, but they can't do it here because it 
would just drive the price up stratospherically. That seems odd.
  In fact, this would help them. If we adopted a national standard 
here--and the way my bill is written, it would be essentially the same 
as that required in the European Union and 64 other countries--then 
they could ship their food to all 50 States, the territories, and 64 
countries around the world without having to make any changes. They 
might save some money then if labels are so expensive.
  But, no, we are going to have a meaningless, voluntary label. Even 
worse, we are going to create a new label. We are going to say that 
``natural'' means GMO. When you mate a flounder with a tomato plant--
which is what they do, just like hybridizing, flounders, tomato plants, 
they get together all the time--then that is natural.
  Or when you take a salmon and you introduce an eel gene--they mate, 
cross-breed all the time--well, no, actually, they don't--and the 
salmon grows twice as fast as normal salmon, then that is natural.
  You won't be able to say ``contains GMOs'' if you can say ``natural'' 
and ``natural'' means contains GMOs, unless they want to voluntarily go 
on and say: Well, under the new ``natural'' label, I can have GMOs, but 
I am going to put it is natural, but it contains GMOs.
  This has the prospect of causing tremendous chaos with a new, very 
confusing label for the American consumers.
  Back to the cross-contamination--again, this is not just a blue State 
issue; it is a red State issue. We have huge export markets, and those 
64 countries will not accept products that contain GMOs. If you strip 
out State regulations, how they claim they have fixed the bill, and 
they don't strip out all the State department of agriculture 
regulations in some 35 States around the country, many of them very red 
States.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, they claim to have fixed it, but the 
language is still a little bit ambiguous. Many people who have read 
it--experts say no, actually, it looks like we are preempting State 
department of agriculture on separation and buffer zones and other 
things to protect conventional farmers, organic farmers from the GMOs.
  I had a very simple amendment that would just say this does not 
preempt any State department of agriculture which has adopted for the 
purposes of redacting conventional crops, non-GMO, and organic crops 
for reasonable buffer zones and other sorts of provisions to prevent 
that cross-contamination. That is wiped out by this bill, in my opinion 
and the opinion of many other experts. My amendment was not allowed.
  I am thankful that I had one amendment allowed which will say, if you 
are already labeling it in countries all around the world, you have got 
to label it here. That is good, but preferably, we would have uniform 
labeling of everything in the 50 States and internationally by just 
requiring that you disclose that it contains GMOs.
  There is another amendment that will be offered tomorrow which will 
do away with this new ``natural'' standard, ``natural'' meaning 
mandatorily under Federal law contains GMOs. ``Natural'' can contain 
GMOs. I think that is pretty disingenuous, and I am not sure who 
slipped that little beauty in there.
  If you want to talk about confusing consumers, ``organic,'' 
``natural.'' Whoa, what is the difference between ``natural'' and 
``organic''? Well, I like ``natural.'' ``Organic,'' that sounds kind of 
complicated; I will go with ``natural.'' Oh, that contains GMOs. Well, 
it doesn't say that. No, it doesn't. It says ``natural.'' ``Natural'' 
contains GMOs.
  If the gentleman is really concerned about consumer confusion, you 
should support that amendment tomorrow to do away with this new 
disingenuous label.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to assure my friend from Massachusetts that the 
gentleman from Washington and I are indeed paying attention to him, as 
we do in the Committee on Rules. He is a very knowledgeable gentleman 
and certainly makes very interesting points.
  The problem is that, as I listened to you talk, what you were saying, 
the gentleman says, I think quite eloquently, that we need a national 
standard, and right now, we don't have a national standard. This bill 
will provide a national standard.
  If you want a national standard, the status quo doesn't get you 
there. If you want a national standard, this bill gets you there. That 
is why the bill has been offered. That is why we have this rule today, 
and that is why it is so important that we have this debate and the 
debate on the underlying rule, so we can make sure we are all straight 
about what this bill does and does not do.
  This bill does something that is not being done right now. It 
provides a national standard for GMO. The gentleman, I think, would 
like for it to be mandatory; the bill calls for it to be voluntary. We 
can disagree about whether or not that is advisable, but we can't 
disagree about the fact that there is no national standard now, and 
this bill provides one.
  I want to make sure the gentleman knows, we listened to him. He makes 
very interesting points that are always educational to us, but we don't 
agree with his line of thought here. This bill, in our judgment, gets 
us where I think he is trying to take us to go.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 12165]]

  Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say to the gentleman, I agree with 
him that this bill that will be considered tomorrow that this rule will 
make in order does create a national standard.
  The problem is that it is a national standard that keeps consumers in 
the dark about what is in their food. Many of us would prefer a 
national standard that kind of shines some light on what is in people's 
food so that consumers know what they are buying. That is what 
consumers want.
  I will go back to what I said in my opening statement. I know this is 
a radical idea in this particular Congress, but we ought to try 
something different. We ought to try giving the American people what 
they want. On this issue, they want to know what is in their food. They 
want to know whether their foods contain GMOs.
  Again, this is not a debate about whether GMOs are good or bad. As I 
said before, I eat GMOs; I consume GMOs; my family consumes GMOs. That 
is not what this debate is about. This is about information, 
transparency, and giving consumers what they want.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question, and if we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring 
up H.R. 3064, a comprehensive 6-year surface transportation bill that 
is partially paid for by restricting U.S. companies from using so-
called inversion to shirk their tax obligations.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the 
Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on 
the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Budget, to discuss this proposal.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I do just want to take a break from the 
GMO debate to talk about a huge problem confronting our country, and 
that is the infrastructure that is in disrepair, from roads to bridges 
to transit ways around this country.
  The American people know it, and they are backed up in what they can 
see in front of them by a report from the American Society of Civil 
Engineers. They are the nonpartisan pros; they are the experts.
  They have looked at the state of American infrastructure and given us 
a grade of a D-plus--D-plus. Nobody should be happy with a D-plus. The 
sad thing is that this Congress should get an F grade for failing to 
respond to the bad grade with respect to our failing infrastructure.
  In the face of this big problem, what did the House do? Well, we are 
about to run out of money in 8 days. We are about to see the end of the 
authorization in 8 days; so the House of Representatives, instead of 
coming up with a long-term plan to address this issue, which is what we 
should do, came up with another kick-the-can-down-the-road Band-Aid 
approach. They said, we are going to provide an extension of the 
inadequate funding for just 5 more months, just to December of this 
year.
  Now, we are a great country, and I think everybody knows that if you 
are planning to make major investments in infrastructure, whether it is 
our roads or our bridges or transit ways, you need a little more 
certainty and stability than that.
  Certainly, the private sector couldn't plan on 5-month intervals, and 
we are asking these companies and these workers and these States to 
come up with long-term plans for our States and for our country on 
infrastructure, but we are only going to give them 5 months of 
certainty going forward. We think that is a bad idea. Guess what. 
Senate Republicans also think that is a bad idea. They came up with a 
6-year plan.
  Now, what we are providing this House today is the opportunity on the 
very next vote to vote for the opportunity to vote on a robust 6-year 
transportation infrastructure plan that is fully funded for the first 2 
years.
  How do we pay for that 2-year installment? We pay for it, Mr. 
Speaker, by getting rid of this egregious tax loophole that many 
multinational corporations are using to escape their responsibilities 
to the American taxpayer.
  Here is how it works. You have an American company. Their 
headquarters are here; their people are here; everything they do is 
here. Then they go and they purchase a small company, a small foreign 
company, and they move their mailing address overseas to that small 
company, and then that American company benefits from the educational 
system we have here in the United States.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, they purchase a small foreign company, 
and then they move their mailing address overseas to that small 
company. They then say to the American taxpayer: Guess what. We don't 
have to pay any more taxes in the United States. We don't have to pay 
taxes for the infrastructure that we have that does support us. We 
don't have to pay for the education system that supports us. We want a 
free ride.
  Now, we need to close down this tax break. More and more companies 
every day are taking advantage of it.

                              {time}  1315

  If you close that loophole, you generate $40 billion. And you use 
that money that otherwise would go to the bottom line of these 
corporations that are trying to escape their responsibility to the 
American people and you invest it in infrastructure right here at home. 
You help modernize your infrastructure, and you put more people to 
work.
  We have introduced a piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, to do that. 
The bill is H.R. 3064. And if we defeat the previous question, we as a 
House will have an opportunity to vote on a 6-year, robust 
transportation plan that is funded for 2 years by closing this 
egregious tax loophole that is being exploited by corporations.
  Let's defeat the previous question. Let's do the right thing for 
American workers and American infrastructure.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the points of the gentleman from Maryland. 
I, too, would like to see a 6-year highway bill. If you come to my 
district and see Interstate 10 going through Mobile at rush hour, on a 
holiday weekend, or on a summer weekend, you will see cars backed up 
just about every direction. We need another I-10 bridge across the 
Mobile River. We can't do that with a short-term highway bill.
  So I strongly support what you are trying to accomplish--maybe not 
exactly how you are trying to get there, but I certainly support the 
concept there.
  Here is the problem, though. Your idea, whatever it is, hasn't been 
vetted through committee. You are just going to put it up here in place 
of whatever we have got, and there really won't be an adequate 
opportunity for the Members of this House to understand all the 
details, and the details are going to matter.
  Also, I was listening to the gentleman from Massachusetts in his 
initial statement talk about how inappropriate it is that we put two 
different bills on two different topics under one rule, and now we are 
going to interject transportation. Well, if agriculture and energy are 
confusing, if we add transportation, it is going to be further 
confusing.
  So as much as I appreciate the idea that the gentleman from Maryland 
has--perhaps not the specifics, but the idea--this is not the 
appropriate place, and this is certainly not the appropriate rule for 
us to be discussing it.
  When the time comes to be appropriate, I will actually move the 
previous question, but I will also ask all of my colleagues to support 
the previous question when I do so. I believe that is the appropriate 
way for this House to handle a matter of this magnitude, and it is a 
matter of great magnitude.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 12166]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before I close, I will insert in the Record a letter from the 
National Farmers Union supporting mandatory GMO labeling and opposed to 
H.R. 1599; a letter from Dr. John W. Boyd, Jr., the Founder and 
President of the National Black Farmers Association; a letter from Ben 
Burkett, the Executive Director of the National Family Farm Coalition, 
opposed to H.R. 1599; a letter from the Consumers Union opposed to H.R. 
1599; a letter from Jostein Solheim, the CEO of Ben & Jerry's, opposed 
to the underlying bill; a letter from Tom Colicchio on behalf of the 
Food Policy Action group, opposed to H.R. 1599; a letter from Scott 
Faber, Senior Vice President for Governmental Affairs at EWG, opposed 
to H.R. 1599; a letter from the Consumer Federation of America opposed 
to H.R. 1599 and in support of mandatory GMO labeling; a letter from 
the CEO of National Co+op Grocers, opposed to the bill; and a letter 
from a group called Just Label It, signed by a whole bunch of people 
opposed to the bill and for mandatory GMO labeling.

                   [From the National Farmers Union,
                             July 21, 2015]

NFU Reiterates Support for Mandatory GMO Labeling, Opposes Pompeo Bill 
                           but Notes Progress

       Washington.--In light of the U.S. House of Representatives' 
     consideration of the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act 
     (H.R. 1599), National Farmers Union (NFU) President Roger 
     Johnson again highlighted NFU policy on Genetically Modified 
     Organism (GMO) labeling. The policy supports conspicuous, 
     mandatory, uniform and federal labeling for food products 
     throughout the processing chain to include all ingredients, 
     additives and processes, including genetically altered or 
     engineered food products.
       ``NFU appreciates efforts by Representatives Pompeo, R-
     Kansas, and Davis, R-Illinois, to reduce consumer confusion 
     and standardize a GMO label;'' said Johnson. ``The bill 
     passed out of committee makes significant improvements over 
     previous versions of this bill. Absent a mandatory labeling 
     framework, however, NFU cannot support this bill.''
       Johnson noted that the bill has changed several times from 
     the one introduced during the last Congress. Improvements 
     include additional authority for the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture (USDA), a labeling framework that if utilized 
     could reduce consumer confusion, greater emphasis on the Food 
     and Drug Administration's role in safety reviews, and a GMO 
     label that works in conjunction with USDA's organic seal 
     instead of counter to it.
       ``Consumers increasingly want to know more information 
     about their food, and producers want to share that 
     information with them,'' said Johnson. ``It is time to find 
     common ground that includes some form of mandatory disclosure 
     for the benefit of all aspects of the value chain, but this 
     bill is not that common ground.''
                                  ____

                                                    July 15, 2015.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Office of the Speaker of the House.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Office of the Democratic Leader.

     Re ``Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act,'' H.R. 1599

       Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi: The National Black 
     Farmers Association (NBFA), a non-profit organization 
     representing African American farmers and their families with 
     tens of thousands of members nationwide, urge you to oppose 
     the ``Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act'' (also known as 
     the ``Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act'').
       NBFA strongly supports mandatory labeling of genetically 
     engineered foods (commonly called ``GMOs''). But in spite of 
     its name, the ``Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act'' 
     undermines farmworker safety and labeling by:
       Preempting states from regulating GMO crops to protect 
     farmworker health, public health, and the environment;
       Codifying the current, broken voluntary labeling system;
       Allowing ``natural'' foods to contain GMO ingredients and 
     preempt state efforts to end misleading ``natural'' claims; 
     and
       Virtually eliminating FDA's ability to craft a national GMO 
     labeling system.
       While NBFA does not object to farmers growing GMO crops per 
     se, we are aware of the increased use of toxic weed killers 
     associated with herbicide-tolerant GMO crops. As farmers, 
     NBFA members know firsthand that consumers are demanding more 
     information about the food they feed their families--not 
     less.
       NBFA stands with the vast majority of Americans who are in 
     favor of labeling GMOs. Because the ``Safe and Accurate Food 
     Labeling Act'' does not require GMO labels, we urge you to 
     oppose the bill.
           Sincerely,

                                        Dr. John W. Boyd, Jr.,

                                            Founder and President,
     National Black Farmers Association.
                                  ____



                               National Family Farm Coalition,

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 2015.
       Dear Representative, On behalf of the family farmers, 
     ranchers and fishermen we represent, the National Family Farm 
     Coalition (NFFC) urges you to oppose H.R. 1599, the Safe and 
     Accurate Food Labeling Act. H.R. 1599 proponents claim it 
     would establish a national standard for labeling products 
     containing GMOs. In reality, this bill fails to provide more 
     accurate labeling and significantly curtails the ability of 
     state, local and municipal governments to protect their 
     constituents.
       H.R. 1599 would establish a voluntary national standard 
     that companies could use to label their products as GMO-free, 
     but FDA guidelines have provided this option for companies 
     since 2001. An overwhelming 88 percent of consumers favor 
     required labeling of food products containing GMOs in a 
     Mellman Group study, but H.R. 1599's voluntary program would 
     also allow companies to label products containing GMOs as 
     `natural', which is vague and misleading to consumers.
       H.R. 1599 would invalidate dozens of state and local laws 
     across the nation. The GMO labeling laws that citizens and 
     legislators worked for diligently in Vermont, Maine and 
     Connecticut would be preempted. Furthermore, H.R. 1599 would 
     block laws creating buffer zones around schools and hospitals 
     to protect children and patients from pesticide exposure, as 
     in Hawaii.
       For non-GMO farmers, H.R. 1599 would be disastrous as it 
     would preempt laws designed to protect them from GMO 
     contamination of their fields. Farmers have already suffered 
     through the contamination of wheat, rice and other crops, 
     having lost export dollars to Asian markets that demand non-
     GMO varieties. Without strong regulations and oversight, 
     farmers' crops and livelihoods are at risk in ways that they, 
     their families and their communities cannot afford.
       Striking down the laws around food and food production that 
     a broad array of citizens and officials have worked to enact 
     undermines the democratic processes guaranteed by our 
     constitution. The NFFC asks you to oppose H.R. 1599, thereby 
     preserving the rights of people to know what they are growing 
     and consuming.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ben Burkett,
     NFFC Executive Board President.
                                  ____



                                   ConsumersUnion',

                                    Washington, DC, July 21, 2015.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: Consumers Union, the policy and 
     advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, strongly urges you to vote 
     no on H.R. 1599, introduced by Representative Pompeo, which 
     we understand the House will consider this week. The bill 
     would very broadly preempt state laws relating to genetically 
     engineered (GE) food and crops, and ban any level of 
     government from requiring GE food to be labeled as such.
       Consumers Union supports mandatory labeling of GE food, and 
     opposes H.R. 1599, for several reasons. First, consumers want 
     labeling. Polls, including our own, show that more than 90% 
     of consumers want GE food to be labeled accordingly. Yet H.R. 
     1599 would codify current prevailing federal policy, in which 
     any labeling of GE food must be the voluntary choice of the 
     food producer--a policy which has only generated confusion. 
     The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) adopted this policy 15 
     years ago, and today there is not a single food product on 
     the market that carries a label indicating it contains GE 
     ingredients.
       Second, there are numerous precedents for mandatory 
     labeling. FDA already requires labeling of food if it is 
     homogenized, frozen, or made from concentrate. Some 64 
     countries, including most of our major trading partners, 
     require labeling of GE food.
       Third, states have begun to act on the clear requests of 
     their citizens for information on whether the food they buy 
     contains GE ingredients. Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut have 
     passed legislation requiring labeling of food from GE plants. 
     Other states, including New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 
     Massachusetts, and Illinois, have considered bills. Whether 
     enacted by state legislatures or approved by voters, the 
     ability of states to act democratically to carry out the 
     wishes of their citizens on GE food labeling should not be 
     impeded by Congress.
       Fourth, H.R. 1599 would permit the use of ``natural'' 
     claims on the labels of GE food until FDA finalizes a rule 
     defining ``natural'' and decides whether it will continue to 
     allow this practice. The bill would also prohibit states from 
     taking their own steps to regulate the use of these claims. 
     Polling by Consumer Reports has found that more than 60% of 
     consumers are misled, in that they already believe a 
     ``natural'' label on a product means it does not contain 
     genetically modified ingredients. Fully 85% of consumers 
     think that a ``natural'' label on packaged or

[[Page 12167]]

     processed foods should mean no genetically modified 
     ingredients were used. Yet Consumer Reports testing last year 
     identified five food products labeled ``natural'' that 
     actually did contain such ingredients. By allowing foods 
     labeled as ``natural'' to contain GE ingredients, H.R. 1599 
     would authorize a deceptive practice that is highly 
     inconsistent with consumer expectations.
       Fifth, mandatory GE food labeling would not be expensive. 
     An analysis commissioned by Consumers Union and conducted by 
     an independent economic research firm found from a review of 
     published research that the median cost of requiring GE food 
     labeling is $2.30 per person annually--less than a penny a 
     day for each consumer. This figure takes into account one-
     time implementation expenses, so the actual cost per person 
     could be even lower.
       Finally, H.R. 1599 goes beyond the question of labeling to 
     explicitly prohibit state or local requirements related to 
     the use of GE plants for food in interstate commerce. 
     Restrictions on growing such crops in California, Oregon, 
     Washington, and Hawaii would likely be severely restricted or 
     invalidated. These measures were adopted for a variety of 
     reasons, including to prevent the contamination of specialty 
     crops destined for export, protect against invasive species, 
     and limit the use of toxic pesticides, such as glyphosate, 
     which many GE crops have been engineered to tolerate and 
     which was recently classified by the World Health 
     Organization's cancer research arm as probably carcinogenic 
     to humans.
       We therefore strongly urge you to vote no on H.R. 1599, 
     which is contrary to what consumers want, and which would 
     profoundly interfere with the ability of state and local 
     governments to respond to the needs of their citizens.
           Sincerely,
     Jean Halloran,
       Director, Food Policy Initiatives, Consumers Union.
     Urvashi Rangan,
       Director, Consumer Safety and Sustainability, Consumer 
     Reports.
                                  ____

     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: I write on behalf of Ben & Jerry's to 
     urge you to oppose H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food 
     Labeling Act of 2015, otherwise known as the DARK Act.
       As you know, national public opinion polling shows that 
     more than 90% of Americans want to know whether the products 
     they purchase contain genetically engineered ingredients 
     (GMOs). Just like labels that require disclosure of farm-
     raised salmon or orange juice from concentrate, mandatory 
     labeling of GMO food will provide consumers the information 
     they need to make choices for themselves and their families. 
     Only mandatory GMO labeling will ensure that American 
     consumers have the same right to know what's in the food as 
     citizens in 64 other countries around the world, including 
     many where Ben & Jerry's operates. H.R. 1599, with its 
     voluntary framework for labeling products without GMOs, will 
     only enhance confusion in the marketplace.
       As a Vermont-based company, we are particularly troubled 
     that H.R. 1599 would preempt Vermont's Act 120, which 
     beginning in July of 2016, will require labeling of food 
     products with GMO ingredients sold in Vermont. As a food 
     company doing business in all 50 states, we'd prefer a 
     national standard for mandatory GMO labeling, but absent 
     that, we support states like Vermont passing legislation that 
     ensures transparency and consumers' right to know.
       As an ice cream company that operates in more than 30 
     countries, many of which require mandatory GMO labeling, we 
     are not swayed by arguments that mandatory labeling will be 
     expensive. The truth is, we regularly make changes, sometimes 
     big, sometimes small to our packaging. Every year, we make 
     changes to between 25% and 50% of our packaging. Over the 
     last 7 years, we've gone through three full line redesigns. 
     In other words, we have changed the packaging on every single 
     pint in our product line as a matter of normal business. I 
     can tell you unequivocally that changing labels does not 
     require us to raise the price of our products. Lots of things 
     impact the cost a consumer pays for a pint of Ben & Jerry's. 
     Label changes are not one.
       I'd be more than happy to discuss this issue and how it 
     would impact a large international food company like ours in 
     more detail with you or your staff. I urge you to stand with 
     the more than 90% of Americans that support transparency in 
     our food system by opposing H.R. 1599.
           All the best,
                                                  Jostein Solheim,
     CEO, Ben & Jerry's.
                                  ____



                                           Food Policy Action,

                                    Washington, DC, July 16, 2015.
       Dear Representative: I urge you to oppose H.R. 1599, 
     legislation designed to block state and federal GMO labeling 
     laws and to weaken regulation of GMO crops.
       As a chef, I want to know what I am feeding my customers. 
     And, my customers want to know what's in their food and how 
     it's grown.
       So, I am shocked that some legislators in Washington are 
     trying to deny consumers this basic right.
       Next week, legislators in the U.S. House of Representatives 
     will consider H.R. 1599, legislation that would block states 
     from requiring GMO labels and that would make it virtually 
     impossible for FDA to craft a national GMO labeling system.
       But that's not all. H.R. 1599 would also block states from 
     regulating GMO crops to protect farmers and public health.
       Nine out of ten consumers tell us they want the right to 
     know whether their food contains GMOs--just like consumers in 
     64 other nations. But, H.R. 1599 would deny them this right.
       Congress should be leading efforts to give consumers more 
     information about what's in their food and how it's grown, 
     not less.
       I urge you to oppose H.R. 1599.
           Sincerely,
     Tom Colicchio.
                                  ____



                                                          EWG,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 2015.
       Dear Representative: EWG strongly opposes H.R. 1599, the 
     so-called ``Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015.'' We 
     urge you to vote NO.
       Consumers have the right to know what is in their food and 
     how it is grown. H.R. 1599 would deny consumers this basic 
     right by preempting state GMO labeling laws, virtually 
     eliminating the ability of the Food and Drug Administration 
     to craft a national mandatory GMO labeling system, by 
     enshrining a voluntary GMO labeling system that has failed 
     consumers, and by allowing ``natural'' claims on GMO foods.
       Nine out of ten consumers want the right to know whether 
     their food has been produced with genetically modified food 
     ingredients--just like consumers in 64 other nations. GMO 
     labeling has not increased food prices in other nations, and 
     studies show that a modest GMO disclosure on the back of food 
     packages will have no impact on food prices or food security 
     needs.
       In addition, H.R. 1599 would preempt state and local GMO 
     crop regulations designed to protect farmers from economic 
     harms caused by GMO crops. More than 40 states and counties 
     have adopted rules designed to protect farmers and rural 
     residents from the impacts of GMO crops.
       Consumers should have the right to know what it's their 
     food and how it's grown. We urge you to vote NO on H.R. 1599.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Scott Faber,

                                         Senior Vice President for
     Government Affairs, EWG.
                                  ____



                               Consumer Federation of America,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 2015.
       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of Consumer Federation 
     of America (CFA), I urge you to vote in opposition to the 
     Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 (H.R. 1599) when 
     it comes up for a full floor vote. CFA is an association of 
     250 nonprofit consumer organizations across the country that 
     was established in 1968 to advance the consumer interest 
     through research, advocacy and education.
       Contrary to its name, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling 
     Act is not an appropriate solution to labeling genetically 
     modified organisms (GMOs). Instead, the Act would codify the 
     current voluntary system which has not provided consumers the 
     information they want to know. It would pre-empt state GMO 
     labeling laws passed to provide their constituents with 
     accurate information about their food. The Act would also 
     create consumer confusion in the marketplace by allowing food 
     companies to continue making ``natural'' claims on products 
     containing GMO foods.
       More and more, American consumers want information about 
     the food they feed to their families. American consumers have 
     a right to know what is in their food, just like consumers in 
     64 countries who already have the right to know whether their 
     food contains GMOs. Voluntary labeling, as proposed in the 
     Act, is not effective because it does not provide consistent 
     information to consumers. Instead, consumers get information 
     only from some companies who choose to provide it and not 
     from other companies. A better solution is the GE Food Right 
     to Know Act introduced by Senator Boxer and Representative 
     DeFazio, which would require GMO foods to be labeled, 
     providing consumers with the consistent information they 
     deserve.
       I urge you to oppose the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling 
     Act of 2015 (H.R. 1599) when it comes up for a full floor 
     vote.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Chris Waldrop.
                                  ____



                                       National Co+op Grocers,

                                     Iowa City, IA, July 17, 2015.
       Dear Representative: National Co+op Grocers (NCG) supports 
     consumers' right to information, including sufficient product 
     labeling, so that people can make their own informed 
     purchasing decisions. We strongly oppose The Safe and 
     Accurate Food Labeling Act (H.R. 1599) because it:

[[Page 12168]]


       1. Lacks transparency. H.R. 1599 merely codifies the status 
     quo of voluntary labeling. In the 14 years since the FDA has 
     allowed companies to voluntarily label foods that have been 
     produced using genetic engineering, no single company has 
     labeled them as such. Only mandatory labeling fulfills 
     consumer demand for transparency regarding GMOs.
       2. Undermines public will. Multiple surveys have shown that 
     the majority of Americans, regardless of age, income, 
     education, or party affiliation, want GMO foods to be 
     labeled. H.R. 1599 nullifies GMO labeling laws that are 
     already on the books in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine. 
     Furthermore, the bill preempts states by blocking any future 
     state legislation or ballot initiatives that would require 
     GMO labeling. While NCG favors a national solution, we 
     support states' efforts in the absence of federally regulated 
     mandatory labeling.
       3. Heightens consumer confusion. Newly inserted language 
     would allow food companies to continue to make ``natural'' 
     claims on foods produced using genetic engineering and would 
     also block state efforts to protect consumers from misleading 
     ``natural'' claims. Because many consumers believe that 
     ``natural'' foods are produced without genetically engineered 
     ingredients, H.R. 1599 would only perpetuate consumer 
     confusion in the marketplace.
       NCG is a business services cooperative for retail food co-
     ops located throughout the United States. We represent 143 
     food co-ops operating over 195 stores in 38 states with 
     combined annual sales of over $1.7 billion and over 1.3 
     million consumer-owners. We urge Congress to reject H.R. 
     1599.
       Thank you for your time and consideration of this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Robynn Shrader,
     National Co+op Grocers CEO.
                                  ____



                                               Just Label It!,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 2015.
       Dear Representative: We urge you to oppose H.R. 1599, which 
     would deny Americans the right to know whether their food 
     contains genetically modified food ingredients.
       National polls show that nine out of ten Americans want the 
     right to know if their food contains GMOs. Regardless of age, 
     income, education level or even party affiliation, Americans 
     want the right to know what is in their food and how it was 
     produced--the same right held by citizens in 64 other 
     nations.
       As business leaders, we hope that you will reject H.R. 1599 
     and instead require food companies to label products that 
     contain GMOs.
       If enacted, H.R. 1599 would limit the FDA's ability to 
     create a national GMO labeling system, weaken our broken 
     voluntary labeling system, and block state initiatives to 
     give citizens this basic information about their food.
       Congress has long recognized that Americans should be given 
     basic information about their food and trusted to make the 
     right choices for their families.
       We urge you to honor this longstanding tradition and to 
     reject H.R. 1599.
           Sincerely,
       Andrew Abraham, Founder and CEO, Orgain Inc., CA; Jose 
     Andres, Chef and Founder, Think Food Group, DC; Summer 
     Auerbach, Second Generation Owner, Rainbow Blossom Natural 
     Food Markets, KY; Dan Barber, Chef/Co-Owner, Blue Hill at 
     Stone Barns, NY; Brandon Barnholt, President and CEO, KeHE 
     Distributors LLC, IL; Fedele Bauccio, CEO, Bon Appetit 
     Management, CA; Rick Bayless, Chef/Owner, Frontera Grill, IL; 
     Andy and Rachel Berliner, Co-Founders, Amy's Kitchen, CA; 
     Trudy Bialic, Director, Public Affairs, PCC Natural Markets, 
     WA; Mitch Blumenthal, Founder, Global Organic Specialty 
     Source Inc, FL.
       Marco Borges, CEO, 22 Days Nutrition, FL; Doug Brent, CEO, 
     Made in Nature LLC, CO; Clifford Brett Jr., CEO/Owner, 
     Kimberton Whole Foods, PA; Peter and Janie Brodhead, Owners, 
     Brighter Day Natural Foods Market, GA; David Bronner, CEO, 
     Dr. Bronner's Inc., CA; Michael Branner, Founder and 
     Chairman, UNREAL Inc., MA; Jonas Buehl, Owner, The Crunchy 
     Grocer, CO; Jon Cadoux, Founder/CEO, Peak Organic Brewing 
     Company, ME; Yvonne Chamberlain, Owner, The Market @ Tree of 
     Life Center, TN; Kevin Cleary, CEO, Clif Bar & Company, CA.
       Morty Cohen, CEO, Falcon Trading Company, CA; Tom 
     Colicchio, CEO, Craft Hospitality, NY; Kerry Collins, CEO, 
     Applegate Inc., NJ; Kit Crawford, Co-Owner, Clif Bar & 
     Company, CA; Nicole Dawes, President, COO, Late July 
     Organics, MA; Joel Dee, President, Edward & Sons Trading 
     Company, CA; Valerie Deptula, President, The Good Earth 
     Natural Foods Co., MD; Steve Diakowsky, President and CEO, 
     Taste of Nature Foods Inc., CA; Norman Dill, Owner/President, 
     Rebecca's Natural Food, VA; Adnan Durrani, CEO, Saffron Road 
     Inc., CT.
       Steve Ells, Chairman and CEO, Chipotle, CO; Shane Emmett, 
     CEO, Health Warrior, VA; Gary Erickson, Co-Owner and Founder, 
     Clif Bar & Company, CA; Susie Farbin, Co-Owner, Mama Jean's 
     Natural Market, MO; Jerry Farrell, Owner/President, Rising 
     Tide Natural Market, NY; Mark Fergusson, Chief Executive 
     Officer, Down to Earth Organic & Natural, HI; Mike Ferry, 
     President, Horizon Organic, CO; John Foraker, CEO, Annie's 
     Inc., CA; Leonard Freeke, CEO and Founder, The Veri Soda 
     Company, NY; Michael Funk, Co-Founder and Chairman, United 
     Natural Foods Inc., RI.
       Robert Gerner, President, The Natural Grocery Company, CA; 
     Diane Gibb-Lahodny, Owner, Campbell's Nutrition, IA; Neal 
     Gottlieb, CEO, Three Twins Ice Cream, CA; Gail Graham, 
     General Manager, Mississippi Market Natural Foods Coop, MN; 
     Jerry Greenfield, Co-Founder, Ben & Jerry's Inc., VT; Hitesh 
     Hajarnavis, Founder, esSVee, Life, NJ; Kristi Harwell, Owner/
     CEO, New Leaf Community Market, CA; Ben Henderson, Owner, 
     Bare Essentials Natural Market, NC; Belinda Higuera, CEO, 
     Berryvale Grocery, CA; Gary Hirshberg, Chairman, Stonyfield 
     Farm Inc., NH; Roland Hoch, Vice President, Global Organics 
     Ltd., MA.
       Janie Hoffman, CEO and Founder, Mamma Chia, CA; Stephanie 
     Hong, CEO, Real Food Company, CA; Steve Hughes, Founder and 
     CEO, Boulder Brands Inc., CO; Cheryl Hughes, Owner, The Whole 
     Wheatery, CA; Nicolas Jammet, Co-Founder, Sweetgreen Inc., 
     DC; Mindee Jeffery, Product & Standards Analyst, Good Earth 
     Natural Foods, CA; Blair Kellison, CEO, Traditional 
     Medicinals, CA; Rosanne Kiely, Owner, West Village Market & 
     Deli, NC; Ashley Koff, CEO, Ashley Koff RD LLC, DC; Jesse 
     LaFlamme, CEO, Pete and Gerry's Organic Eggs, NH.
       Donna Layburn, President, Alameda Natural Grocery, CA; 
     Lanis LeBaron, Owner, Lupines Natural Foods, CA; David 
     Levine, Co-Founder and CEO, American Sustainable Business 
     Council, DC; Grant Lundberg, CEO, Lundberg Family Farms Inc., 
     CA; Susan and Maury Lyon, Owners, Cornucopia Natural Food & 
     Fine Cheese, IL; Rose Marcario, CEO, Patagonia Inc., CA; Matt 
     McLean, Founder and CEO, Uncle Matt's Organic, FL; Danny 
     Meyer, CEO, Union Square Hospitality Group, NY; Paku Misra, 
     Owner/CEO, Sunflower Natural Foods Market, NY; Sam Mogannam, 
     Founder and President, Bi-Rite Market, CA.
       Marie Montemurro, Owner, Lovey's Natural Foods and Cafe, 
     NC; Rod Moyer, Co-Founder, Beverage Innovations Inc., FL; 
     Dean Nelson, President, Dean's Natural Food Markets, NJ; Nell 
     Newman, Co-Founder, Newman's Own Organics, CT; Ted Niehaus, 
     Owner/CEO, Naturally Organic, IL; Michel Nischan, President/
     CEO, Wholesome Wave, CT; Bu Nygrens, Co-Founder and Director 
     of Purchasing, Veritable Vegetable, CA; Doug Obenhaus, 
     Grocery Manager, Royal River Natural Foods, ME; Gwyneth 
     Paltrow, Founder and CCO, goop.com, CA; Nick Pascoe, Owner/
     President Bear Foods Natural Market & Cafe-Creperie, WA; John 
     Pittari Jr., President, Proprietor, New Morning Market, CT.
       Mark Polson, Owner/CEO, Polson's Natural Foods, IL; Michael 
     Potter, Chairman and President, Eden Foods, MI; Angela 
     Reusing, Chef-Owner, Lantern, NC; Douglas Riboud, Co-Founder 
     and Co-CEO, Harmless Harvest, CA; Evan Richards, Founder, 
     Rejuvenative Foods, CA; Walter Robb, Co-CEO, Whole Foods 
     Market, TX; Maria Rodale, CEO, Rodale Press, PA; Edouard 
     Rollet, Co-Founder, Alter Eco Foods, CA; Layne Rolston, 
     Communications Director, Good Food Store, MT.
       Scott Roseman, Founder and CEO, New Leaf Community Markets, 
     CA; Bob Scaman, President, Goodness Greeness, IL; Mark 
     Schoninger, Owner, Bath Natural Market ME; Erin Schrode, Co-
     Founder and Spokeswoman, Turning Green, CA; Mathieu Senard, 
     Co-Founder, Alter Eco Foods, CA; Ron Shaich, CEO, Panera 
     Bread Inc., MA; Alan Shepherd, Owner, Rocket Market, WA; 
     Corinne Shindelar, CEO, Independent Natural Food Retailers 
     Association, MN; Ron Sjoquist, General Manager, Good Harvest 
     Market, WI.
       Robynn Shrader, CEO, National Co+op Grocers, IA; Craig 
     Sieben, President, Sieben Energy Associates, IL; George 
     Siemon, CEO, Organic Valley, WI; Irwin D. Simon, Founder, 
     Chairman, President and CEO, The Hain Celestial Group Inc., 
     NY; Jim Slama, President Family Farmed, IL; Joel Solomon, 
     CEO, Joel Solomon Company, TN; Jimbo Someck, President, 
     Jimbo's Naturally, CA; Tom Spier, CEO, Boulder Food Group, 
     CO; Steve Spinner, CEO, United Natural Foods Inc., RI; Mark 
     Squire, President and CEO, Good Earth Natural Foods, CA; Adam 
     and Debra Stark, Owners, Debra's Natural Gourmet, MA; Arran 
     Stephens, Co-Founder and CEO, Nature's Path Foods, WA.
       Bobby Sullivan, General Manager, French Broad Food Co-op, 
     NC; Kelly Swette, CEO, Sweet Earth Natural Foods, CA; Sam 
     Talbot, Founding Executive Chef, The Surf Lodge, NY; Shazi 
     Visram, Founder/CEO, Happy Family Brands, NY; Dennis Wagner, 
     President, Rainbow Grocery Cooperative Inc., CA; Laughing 
     Water, Owner, Real Food Market & Deli, MT; Bill Weiland, 
     President and CEO, Presence Marketing, IL; Cindy Weinfurter, 
     Owner, The Free Market, WI; Tim Westwell, CEO, Pukka Herbs 
     Inc., DE; Bill Whyte, CEO and Founder, W.S. Badger Company 
     Inc., NH; Stephen Williamson, CEO, Forager Project CA; John 
     Wood II, Owner, The Green Grocer, RI; Alex Young, Zingerman's 
     Roadhouse, MI.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

[[Page 12169]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First of all, I oppose the rule because it is not an open rule. A 
number of amendments were not made in order. Again, it is kind of a 
hodgepodge, grab-bag rule where we are dealing with multiple issues 
that are not related. We have to end this practice. Voting against this 
rule is one way to demonstrate your dissatisfaction.
  But let me close talking about H.R. 1599 and basically urge my 
colleagues to be opposed to this bill. The fact of the matter is, as a 
parent--and I think I speak for all parents--I think we want to know 
what is in the food that we are feeding our family. That is why I 
support mandatory GMO labeling. Not 50 different labels of 50 different 
States, but mandatory, standardized GMO labeling.
  Americans want to know what is in their food. American consumers want 
the same right as consumers in 64 other countries who already have the 
right to know whether their food contains GMOs. Why we should not have 
that same right is beyond me, but I guess Washington knows best.
  Support for GMO labeling crosses demographic boundaries. Polls show 
more than 90 percent of Americans want the right to know, regardless of 
age, income, education, or party affiliation. Millions of Americans 
have taken action. More than 1.4 million Americans have joined a 
petition to FDA demanding the right to know what is in their food.
  H.R. 1599, which has been dubbed the ``Dark Act,'' will basically 
block State GMO labeling laws. This will preempt GMO labeling laws that 
have already been passed in Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut, and 
pending in 17 other State legislatures.
  This bill also will allow the bogus natural claims to continue. It 
allows food companies to continue to make natural claims on GMO foods 
and block the State efforts to protect consumers from this misleading 
natural claim. As I pointed out, when consumers see a product that says 
``natural,'' they think it means no GMOs.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard my colleagues say that GMOs are safe and 
why is this labeling necessary. This debate is not about the safety of 
GMOs. As I mentioned before and I will mention again, I consume GMOs, 
my family does. This is about consumers' right to know what is in the 
food they put on their tables. We ought to give them that right.
  This debate isn't about what the label should say. We can work on the 
label. We aren't proposing a skull and crossbones on the packaging. It 
is not a warning to consumers. It is a label simply disclosing the 
presence of GMOs. Consumers are free to use this information as they 
wish, but those who want to know should be able to know.
  We had a fight about mandatory uniform nutrition labels in the 1980s, 
and I think there is no doubt consumers are better off for it. People 
are better served by knowing the nutrition information in their foods.
  Why do my friends want to keep Americans in the dark? I would just 
say people who are listening to this debate ought to call their 
Representatives and tell them that they want more information, not 
less. They want to be more informed about what they are purchasing for 
their families.
  This shouldn't be a controversial idea. This shouldn't be a radical 
idea. Let's give the people what they want. Let's do that for a change. 
Maybe our approval ratings will go up.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' interest in this very 
important topic.
  We said it several times. I am going to say it again. What this bill 
does is provides a national label where there is no label now at the 
national level; and we believe so strongly in that, that we put forward 
this bill. Our side put forward this bill to give us a national label 
because there is none now. There is zero, and you would be, as a 
consumer, totally depending upon your local government, your State 
government, coming up with it. You may find that your government at the 
local level has one thing, your State government at the State level has 
another, a community down the road has a different one. The idea behind 
the uniformity is to give consumers a uniform way of understanding what 
this information is.
  I do wonder, by the way, what some people at home may be thinking 
when they hear all this talk about GMOs. They may be running to the 
refrigerator and saying, What is this GMO stuff?
  The truth of the matter is we all are probably consuming GMOs, 
because they have actually been a tremendous benefit not just to the 
agricultural industry, but to us consumers. It gives us so many 
different varieties of good quality food that we didn't have before.
  So this is not about whether GMOs are a good thing or a bad thing. 
They are about our side providing a vehicle to give a national labeling 
system today, where there is none today. I think the consumers of 
America will appreciate the fact that we did that.
  I do want to go back and say one last thing about the coal ash bill. 
There has been a lot of talk about somehow this bill weakening the EPA 
regulation. Totally to the contrary, this bill codifies the regulation 
in statutory law. Whereas under the present regime at the EPA they are 
not going to do any oversight over how it is going to be implemented, 
they are going to rely upon people to file lawsuits in various Federal 
courts around the Nation, this bill provides that State regulators who 
are already doing this for the most part will be the ones to provide 
that regulation with their substantial expertise and experience, which, 
I can tell you from my years of practicing law in Federal courts, the 
vast majority of our Federal judges don't have that. They will do their 
jobs. They will do their homework. Their law clerks will work with 
them, but they won't bring to it what these State regulators have.
  So we have substantially enhanced the regulation here. We have 
substantially enhanced its implementation by having this bill before 
the House and the House adopting it.
  As they consider these two bills, I would urge everyone to understand 
that what we have offered in these bills is good for consumers and it 
is good for the economy of the United States because it lessens that 
regulatory burden I have talked about at the beginning.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 369 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3064) to authorize highway infrastructure and safety, 
     transit, motor carrier, rail, and other surface 
     transportation programs, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided among and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure and the chair and ranking minority member 
     of the Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3064.

[[Page 12170]]

     
                                  ____
        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BYRNE. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 369, if 
ordered; and agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal, if 
ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 167, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 450]

                               YEAS--239

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

                               NAYS--167

     Adams
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hastings
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Aguilar
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Bridenstine
     Buchanan
     Carter (TX)
     Castro (TX)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clawson (FL)
     Costa
     Esty
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Heck (WA)
     Hurt (VA)
     Israel
     Kennedy
     Kirkpatrick
     Lynch
     Moore
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Smith (WA)
     Waters, Maxine
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                              {time}  1352

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HURT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for rollcall 
vote No. 450 on H. Res. 369. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yes.''

[[Page 12171]]

  Stated against:
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 450, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             RECORDED VOTE

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, 
noes 175, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 451]

                               AYES--242

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

                               NOES--175

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Buchanan
     Carter (TX)
     Castro (TX)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clawson (FL)
     Esty
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Heck (WA)
     Lynch
     Moore
     Stewart
     Waters, Maxine
     Yarmuth


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1401

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


                          personal explanation

  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my vote was not recorded on 
rollcall No. 450, the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question to the 
Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1599 and H.R. 1734. I was not 
present for the vote due to attending a national security briefing at 
the White House. I intended to vote ``nay.'' On rollcall No. 451, the 
Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1599 and H.R. 1734, I intended 
to vote ``nay.''

                          ____________________