Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule. This process is an absolutely outrage. I also rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3009. Mr. Speaker, along with all of my colleagues and every American, my heart goes out to the family of Kathryn Steinle. The murder of any innocent person is a tragedy, and after each such heinous crime, we always ask ourselves: Could this have been avoided? Could we have done something differently? Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3009 paints itself as a remedy to Kathryn Steinle's death, but it does nothing--absolutely nothing--to address how to improve communication between our law enforcement, immigration, prosecutors, and penal institutions, nor does it improve the protocols and practices of how decisions are made on the release or transfer of a prisoner against whom ICE has lodged a detainer request. Instead, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3009 chose to penalize local law enforcement agencies and strip them of their Federal grants and funding when they prioritize working with immigrant communities in order to keep neighborhoods, cities, and towns safe. Republicans would rather demonize these cities and local law enforcement agencies and force them to squander scarce local resources on immigration enforcement, instead of local policing. In effect, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3009 will make our cities and communities less safe, rather than more secure. This is why law enforcement and city governments oppose this bill. It deliberately and cynically undermines their ability to protect their communities, nurture public trust in the police and our legal system, and strengthen our public safety. H.R. 3009 is opposed by the Major County Sheriffs' Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Criminal Justice Association, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National League of Cities; all of them strongly oppose this bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill reeks of prejudice. It isn't meant to solve any problem. It is meant to punish cities that don't embrace the views of anti-immigrant extremists. It is meant to demonize all immigrants as criminals. It means to punish any city, any police officer, any sheriff, and any cop on the beat who challenges the Republican anti-immigrant orthodoxy of ``hate them all'' and ``deport them all.'' Deport the DREAMers; deport the parents of U.S. citizens; deport children fleeing violence-- deport, deport, deport. Mr. Speaker, this House continues to wait and wait for the Republican majority to show some leadership and bring up a comprehensive immigration reform bill. It has been more than 2 years since the Senate passed a strong, bipartisan immigration reform bill; and we are still waiting for the House Republicans to act. What we need is a way to bring 11 million of our neighbors, friends, colleagues, small-business owners, and hard-working residents out of the shadows. Let them register, be documented, and not fear talking with the police. Let us recognize their achievements and contributions to the American way of life. This bill had no hearings, no markup, and no input from local law enforcement--no regular order. In fact, in the topsy-turvy world of the Republican House, the Judiciary Committee's Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee is holding its first hearing on this topic today--this morning--when this bill is already here on the House floor for debate and voted today. No, Mr. Speaker, this bill is just more of the same, old, divisive Republican anti-immigrant formula. America is better than this, and I urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule and to oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I rise today to highlight an editorial that my good friend and colleague, Congresswoman Chellie Pingree of Maine and I recently wrote expressing our opposition to H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. It appeared in the July 21, 2015 online edition of The Boston Globe. [From the Boston Globe, July 21, 2015] Let Americans Decide for Themselves on GMOs (By Jim McGovern and Chellie Pingree) America has a proud tradition of empowering consumers. You can walk into any grocery store in the country, pick up a product from the shelf, and immediately learn the calorie count, the amount of protein per serving, and the full list of ingredients. So it's alarming that Congress could soon pass a bill that aims to keep consumers in the dark when it comes to foods with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. This week, the House of Representative will consider the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. Unfortunately, the bill does nothing to support safe and accurate food labeling. Instead, it protects the status quo by preventing states from requiring labels on foods containing GMO ingredients and locks in the current and inadequate voluntary GMO labeling system. As more of the foods we eat contain GMOs, consumers naturally want to know which foods contain them. All they are asking for are the facts. This bill ignores that. Congress needs to pass a law that puts consumers first by requiring mandatory GMO labeling across the country, eliminating confusion and establishing one national standard. Polls consistently show that there is overwhelming support for clearly labeling foods that have been genetically modified or contain GMO ingredients. In a 2012 survey by the Mellman Group, 89 percent were in favor of labeling with 77 percent saying they ``strongly'' prefer GMO labeling. That same survey also showed strong bipartisan support for GMO labeling with huge majorities of Democrats (85 percent), independents (93 percent), and Republicans (88 percent) all in favor. While Congress has been stuck in neutral, states have stepped up and passed laws that give the power back to consumers. In 2014, Vermont became the first state to require mandatory GMO labeling. Connecticut and Maine have both passed laws to require labeling and more than a dozen other states are considering similar oversight, including Massachusetts. What's more, 64 other countries have GMO labeling, including Brazil whose consumption patterns are similar to those in the United States. Supporters of the bill claim that GMO labeling will increase food prices. While plenty of things impact the prices we pay at the grocery store--including transportation costs and ingredient costs--GMO labeling is not one of them. In study after study, we have seen that a simple GMO disclaimer on food packaging will not increase prices. Food companies change their labels all the time to make new claims, and all food companies will soon have to change their labels to make important changes to the Nutrition Fact Panel. Adding a few words to the back of the food package about genetic engineering will not have any impact of the cost of making food. Opponents of updating food labeling made the same bogus arguments when they fought nutrition labeling in the 1980s. Back then, they claimed that disclosing the presence of calories, salt, fat, and sugar would require costly reformulations. But those much more significant changes to foods labels--adding the Nutrition Facts Panel and including more information about ingredients--didn't change the price of food at all. Americans want more information, not less. What we need is one law that makes GMO labeling mandatory across the country and establishes a single national standard that eliminates confusion and puts consumers in charge. This debate isn't about the safety of GMOs. It's about consumers' right to know what's in the food they put on their tables. We ought to give them that right.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I have an idea. It is a radical idea. It is something that is unprecedented for this Congress, something that would genuinely surprise the American people. That idea is simple; let's give the American people what they want. Poll after poll shows that an overwhelming majority of the American people favor mandatory GMO labeling. People want to know what is in their food that they eat, and they want to know how it is grown. We should give them what they want; yet the bill before us goes in the opposite direction. It keeps the American people in the dark about whether their food contains GMOs. It is no wonder why Congress is so unpopular. To the supporters of this ``keep Americans in the dark'' bill, I would ask one simple question: What are you afraid of? This debate is not about whether GMOs are good or bad. I consume GMOs; my kids consume GMOs. This is about consumers' rights to know what is in the food that they eat, plain and simple. As many of my colleagues know, I am passionate about ending hunger, both here in this country and around the world. If I thought for one second that GMO labeling would cause food prices to rise, I wouldn't be calling for GMO labeling. This is a scare tactic being used by opponents of GMOs labeling. The fact is companies change their labels all the time, for all kinds of reasons. Transportation and commodity prices are drivers of food prices, not labeling. If you are worried about 50 States requiring 50 different labels, then support mandatory GMO labeling. Do not override States that have already embraced GMO labeling or consumers who want them. Sixty-four countries already have GMO labeling. Why can't we? American food companies already have to label their foods as containing GMOs in those countries. Why can't American consumers have access to the same information? Keeping consumers in the dark about what is in their food is the wrong approach. It is a ``Washington knows best'' approach from politicians inside the beltway who think they know better than the American people. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1599.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for more than 10 years I had the pleasure of representing Fall River, a great city with great potential. One of the jewels of the city is The Narrows Center for the Arts. Founded in 1995, it's a vital part of the community that's helping to promote the visual and performing arts. Patrick Norton, one of my former aides, is doing excellent work as the Executive Director of The Narrows, making it a one-of-a-kind destination. I urge my colleagues to read this article in The Boston Globe about The Narrows. The next time you visit New England, make sure you visit The Narrows to see all that it's doing to showcase artists throughout the community. [From The Boston Globe, July 22, 2015] The Narrows Is a Club to Call Home (By Robert Kerr) Tom Rush has taken his music to a lot of places in 50 years, but no place quite like The Narrows. ``Those old, creaky floorboards--you can almost imagine the ghosts of the people who used to work there,'' says Rush, who has sold out the old mill music venue a record 11 times. There is something in those floorboards and in the slightly slanted ceiling and in the big windows that provide a striking view of the Braga Bridge and Mount Hope Bay. There is history, reminders of a time when people did indeed work hard in Fall River mills and, among other things, produced more cotton cloth than any other place on earth. And now there is music in this wonderfully unlikely top floor place. There is music that draws more and more people to listen in an easy and intimate way. The musicians are close and the audience has climbed those stairs or ridden that elevator to listen and savor and maybe chat up a favorite singer or guitarist. ``In 14 years, we've never had idiots,'' says Kathleen Duffy, referring to the clear absence of boozy hustle at The Narrows Center for the Arts. She is a retired speech therapist who bakes the brownies that have become a part of music nights at The Narrows. She is one of the dozens of volunteers who keep this mill town miracle going. ``We couldn't do it without volunteers,'' says Patrick Norton. ``They help load in shows, load out, sell refreshments. Many have been here eight to 10 years. They're a hard core, grizzled bunch.'' Norton, a former aide to Congressman Jim McGovern, is the executive director of The Narrows. ``I've been a music junkie my whole life. I've been in bands. I wanted to be a rock star.'' Instead, he resides at the soundboard and books the performers and does what has to be done. He is one of the two people primarily responsible for making it all happen. It began humbly, very humbly, about 20 years ago in Bert Harlow's carpentry shop in a mill on the bank of South Watuppa Pond. It was in that part of Fall River known as The Narrows that is between the North and South Watuppa. Harlow is a carpenter, a skilled woodworker who has worked in, among other places, Trump Tower in New York City. He even remembers sharing an elevator with Trump, who didn't say hello. He is also a Marine veteran of Vietnam whose combat memories play a part in shaping what is an enduring sense of community obligation. With his skilled hands, he created an art gallery in the front of the mill where his shop was. He had a vision of restoring the mill and creating a park. ``I want to be involved in doing something good,'' says Harlow. ``For me, it's a way to heal.'' He thought a coffeehouse would be a good idea. So there was a coffeehouse. It was created in the mid-'90s by a small group of friends, including Norton, who moved some of Harlow's equipment to one side, cleared a small performance space, put some coffee on, and invited musicians to perform in a different kind of place. It was the beginning. Audiences were small at first, but there was something about music in that mill setting on the pond that drew people. A move to an adjacent room, where the brick walls were sandblasted and some couches and chairs put in, broadened the appeal. Then a developer bought the mill. ``He wanted four times the rent,'' says Norton. They couldn't afford it. Norton and Harlow went looking. At one point, the mayor of New Bedford offered them free downtown space. ``But we're Fall River guys,'' says Norton. They met Sam Shapiro, who owned a mill on the waterfront that needed tenants. ``He liked what we were doing,'' says Norton. ``From day one, he wanted to make this work.'' They moved in in July 2001. And it has worked, but it hasn't been easy. There was the building inspector who showed up after their first show to point out the need for a few improvements, such as enclosing the stairways. ``When things look a little dicey, something seems to happen to pull us through,'' says Norton. There was also the time early on when Harlow said to Norton, ``Let's book Richie Havens.'' Norton thought it was too big a reach. Havens, the man who kicked off Woodstock, was going to cost four or five times what they had ever paid anyone. They gambled. They booked Havens. ``The energy that came off that man was incredible,'' says Harlow. ``That was our first sellout.'' And it was a message to people that there is music in Fall River worth driving for. Maybe settle in for some excellent Portuguese chow at a nearby restaurant, then take in the kind of music people take personally. Tom Rush, Richard Thompson, Los Lobos, Dr. John--all have come to The Narrows and claimed a unique stop on the musical road. ``The audience there is special,'' says Rush, who returns in November. ``They come for the music. And they come for a good time, and they're not going to let me stop them.'' Perhaps the one downside to the story of The Narrows is that it has succeeded almost in spite of the city it's located in. Fall River, a city too well known for squandering opportunity, has not been a big factor in The Narrows' success. And when, on show nights, someone asks for a show of hands from Fall River residents, there are sometimes three or four, sometimes none. ``We're attracting the Providence-Barrington crowd,'' says Norton. ``Maybe it's shabby chic.'' Still, there is a local connection at The Narrows that Norton and Harlow have insisted on and which extends their reach beyond the stage. It is the ``community piece.'' ``I feel lucky to be involved here,'' says Norton. ``Being around Bert all these years, he's like a big brother. And we want to give back to the community. We believe in Fall River.'' There are five artists' studios at The Narrows and a gallery designed by Harlow. There is a lot to look at before and after the music. And kids come to learn about art and music. The Narrows even provides buses. Norton's especially proud of the connection with People Inc., the organization that does such good work with the developmentally disabled. On a spring morning, musician Mark Cutler was onstage with some of the clients of People Inc. He had been writing songs with them--songs that include ``Do You Hate Mondays Too?'' and ``Mind Your Own Business.'' Cutler played his guitar and his young friends picked up microphones and sang in ways that amazed the people who work with them every day. It was a wonderful show. A few weeks later, Cutler was back onstage, this time leading the Schemers, the iconic Rhode Island rock band. It was a CD release party. Cutler is positive The Narrows is the only place he could have played those two gigs.

Mr. McGOVERN

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. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

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.

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.

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.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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. 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 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.

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. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.