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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. I rise in very strong opposition to this rule, which provides for consideration of H.R. 1599, the so-called Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, and H.R. 1734, the Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act.

This week, we are back on the floor with our twenty-fourth grab bag rule, one rule that governs debate for two completely unrelated measures. Today, the Republican majority has chosen to group together a bill that undermines an EPA rulemaking designed to protect public health and our environment with a bill designed to make it harder for consumers to know whether or not their food has been produced with genetically engineered ingredients.

Utilizing this kind of rule for two completely separate bills leads to disjointed debate. It limits the time that people have to be able to talk about these issues, but it is a deliberate attempt by the Republican majority to suppress debate. They don't want to bring serious issues to the floor, and they certainly don't want serious debate, and I regret very much that this has become a pattern.

I also oppose this rule because neither bill is an open rule. A lot of Members, I am sure, have a lot of issues they want to raise on both these bills, but they are not going to have that opportunity. The Rules Committee denied a whole bunch of amendments on the GMO labeling bill last night in committee.

I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for open debate and an open process and reject this. Send a message to the Republican leadership that enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to H.R. 1734, the so-called Improving Coal Combustion Residuals Regulation Act, this bill continues the Republicans' antiscience, antienvironment, antipublic health fight. There is not a week that goes by that we don't have a bill that seeks to try to undermine regulation or rulemaking that is designed to help protect the people of this country.

This bill undercuts EPA's new coal ash rule, putting many communities at risk of exposure. Coal ash is highly toxic and needs to be properly disposed of, and the devastating health effects from exposure to neurotoxins in coal ash--like lead, mercury, and arsenic--are well known.

This bill is just another Republican bill attempting to undermine common sense, health, and safety protection from toxic chemicals. The American people deserve much better. I am glad the White House has issued a veto threat against the bill.

I include the Statement of Administration Policy in the Record.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

I want uniformity, but I want more information, and this idea that somehow labeling will increase food prices is just baseless; it is baseless. There are plenty of things that increase the prices that we pay at the grocery store--transportation costs and ingredients costs, those all add to the cost--but GMO labeling is not one of them. In study after study, we have seen that a simple GMO disclaimer on food packaging will not increase food prices.

I just read to you the letter from the CEO of Ben & Jerry's. Food companies change their labels all the time to make new claims. All food companies will soon have to change their labels to make important changes to the nutrition fact panel.

Adding a few words on the back of the food package about genetic engineering will not impact the cost of making food. That is just not a real argument; that is just baseless. Let's focus on what this bill really does. It basically keeps the American people in the dark about what is in their food.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say to the gentleman, I agree with him that this bill that will be considered tomorrow that this rule will make in order does create a national standard.

The problem is that it is a national standard that keeps consumers in the dark about what is in their food. Many of us would prefer a national standard that kind of shines some light on what is in people's food so that consumers know what they are buying. That is what consumers want.

I will go back to what I said in my opening statement. I know this is a radical idea in this particular Congress, but we ought to try something different. We ought to try giving the American people what they want. On this issue, they want to know what is in their food. They want to know whether their foods contain GMOs.

Again, this is not a debate about whether GMOs are good or bad. As I said before, I eat GMOs; I consume GMOs; my family consumes GMOs. That is not what this debate is about. This is about information, transparency, and giving consumers what they want.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question, and if we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3064, a comprehensive 6-year surface transportation bill that is partially paid for by restricting U.S. companies from using so-called inversion to shirk their tax obligations.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source