Mike Pompeo

Mr. POMPEO

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, is the product of diligent and bipartisan work by the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Agriculture Committee. Over the past year and a half that we have been working on this legislation, we have solicited input from Members and from relevant agencies like the FDA and the USDA. We have also met with the organic community, conventional farmers and ranchers, seed producers, scientists, and supply chain specialists. Throughout this process, we have sought to address every legitimate concern and provide whatever clarification might be necessary. The fact is that the scientific consensus on the safety of genetically engineered products is utterly overwhelming. Precisely zero pieces of credible evidence have been presented that foods produced with biotechnology pose any risk to our health and safety. Given this fact, it is not the place of government--government at any level--to arbitrarily step in and mandate that one plant product should be labeled based solely on how it was bred while another identical product is free of a government warning label because that producer chose a different breeding technology. That is unscientific, and that is bad public policy. The mandatory labeling of genetically engineered products has no basis in legitimate health or safety concerns, but is a naked attempt to impose the preferences of a small segment of the populace on the rest of us and make the constituents whom I serve in Kansas pay more for their food. A recent study shows that the proposed State GE labeling laws could raise the cost of the average family's food bill by, roughly, $500 per year. Many, many families in Kansas simply cannot afford that. Antibiotechnology interest groups are attempting to use State laws to force mandatory GE labeling on safe products and interfere with interstate commerce. To ensure that families in Kansas and all across the country have access to nutritious and affordable food, H.R. 1599 accomplishes three primary objectives. First, we ensure that every new GE plant destined to enter the food supply goes in for an FDA safety review. Second, we prevent the creation of what would be the unworkable patchwork of State-by-State--or even county-by-county or city-by-city-- mandatory GE labeling laws. Finally, in order to provide clarity to those who prefer not to eat GE products, our bill authorizes a voluntary, user-fee-based non-GE labeling program at the USDA to provide even greater transparency and more options so that consumers, by ensuring a common definition for non-GMO for all foods, whether they are sold at the retail level or served in restaurants. Members of Congress need to realize that allowing activists to create a patchwork State-by-State set of rules will have a real effect on our families and our districts. Those who support mandatory GE products must admit they are willing to increase the cost of food for families in Wichita and Dallas and Grand Rapids and in Vermont and in Boston and all across our Nation based on unscientific demands of a handful of antibiotechnology activists. Congress' goal must be to ensure that people in those places have access to safe, nutritious, and affordable food to feed their families. A patchwork of laws will not accomplish that. The reality is that biotechnologies, time and time again, have proven safe. It is simply not debatable. U.S. policies should reflect that. We should not raise prices on consumers based on the wishes of a handful of activists. I ask for everyone to support H.R. 1599. Mr Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC, July 15, 2015. Hon. Michael K. Conaway, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Conaway: I write in regard to H.R. 1599, Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015, which was ordered reported by the Committee on Agriculture on July 14, 2015. As you are aware, the bill also was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I wanted to notify you that the Committee on Energy and Commerce will forgo action on H.R. 1599 so that it may proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration. This is done with the understanding that the Committee on Energy and Commerce's jurisdictional interests over this and similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. In addition, the Committee reserves the right to seek conferees on H.R. 1599 and requests your support when such a request is made. I would appreciate your response confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 1599 and ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor. Sincerely, Fred Upton, Chairman.

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1599.

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that there is some misinformation here. This legislation has literally nothing to do with rules about cultivation. State laws will be able to continue to govern that. That is simply about labeling. I think it is important every one know that. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. POMPEO. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Collins).

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway). When considering the substitute reported by the Committee on Agriculture, I would like to confirm that the committee was aware that many ingredients derived from genetically engineered crops have been so highly refined that they contain no genetically engineered material and that finished food products produced with such ingredients, likewise, would contain no genetically engineered material.

Mr. POMPEO. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. POMPEO. This fact exemplifies why labeling as to whether or not food has been produced through genetic engineering is appropriately voluntary, not mandatory, as it seems unnecessary to require labeling about the use of genetic engineering if the labeled food contains no genetically engineered material. I would just add--and hope that the gentleman from Texas would concur--that this approach is consistent with the exemption from the labeling requirements for major food allergens that Congress has established for highly refined oils as part of the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004. While the eight major food allergens--milk, egg, fish, crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, wheat, peanuts, and soybeans--must be listed on food labels where they or ingredients containing protein derived from these allergens are added to food, the definition of ``major food allergen'' excludes any highly refined oil derived from a major food allergen and ``any ingredient derived from such highly refined oil.''

Mr. POMPEO. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. POMPEO. I thank the gentleman. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway). (Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have heard on multiple occasions about this 90 percent number in some poll about folks who want to have this labeling. This doesn't even pass the smell test. When consumers were asked to list the items they would like to see labeled, exactly 7 percent of respondents to a 2013 Rutgers University study volunteered GMOs. Frankly, the most reliable survey, the ballot box, has been 100 percent consistent. Every time a GMO labeling bill has been presented to voters in any State in the United States of America, they have rejected it. There is most certainly not 90 percent of the folks wanting to know that. This bill will not deny those handful that do the right to do that. It is disingenuous to offer up anything to the contrary. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield), an original cosponsor, who is responsible for getting this bill to the state it is in today.

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining on each side?

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Newhouse).

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. As I close, I would like to offer my thanks first to Mr. Welch for the respectful debate today and for the ice cream. I would like to thank my lead cosponsor, Mr. Butterfield, for his hard work all along the way; as well as being the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, he has leaned into this and really made us able to get where we are today I would like to thank Chairman Upton, Chairman Conaway, and Ranking Member Peterson for their support and effort in getting this legislation to the floor as well. I would like to thank all the staff on the Energy and Commerce and Agriculture Committees for their hard work, too. I would be remiss if I didn't thank Blake Hollander on my staff, who put in long hours making sure this commonsense bipartisan bill was ready for the floor. Mr. Chairman, it is really very simple. H.R. 1599 has two very simple goals. First, it is to ensure families in Kansas and across the country have access to nutritious and affordable food; and, second, it is to make sure that those who wish to avoid food products that contain GMOs will be able to do so, that they will not be denied the right to know. In place of a convoluted patchwork of loophole-filled State or local labeling laws, we will ensure that our food policy is science based and transparent to consumers. Let's be very clear. Consumers who wish to avoid foods containing GMOs are able to do so today, and they will be able to do so after this bill becomes law--except it is better now. There will now be a clear standard about what that term really means. Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense, proconsumer, profarmer bill that brings clarity to food labeling and keeps affordable food for our constituents. I encourage all my colleagues to support H.R. 1599, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, we should not create a system whereby U.S. food producers are at the complete mercy of global actors all around the world. Goodness knows what the requirements would be for their labels here. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, the United States should not let other countries dictate U.S. food policy. This would be absurd. It is exactly what this amendment does. The proponents of this amendment seemingly wish to scare the public with unjustified warning labels on all products produced with any technology or, short of that, punish companies that have the audacity to engage in foreign commerce. Just because European policy has been driven by fear-mongering, we should not allow it to be so here in the United States. We should not succumb to this angry rhetoric. We should lead the world in getting this policy right. Now, let's just say, for sake of argument, we were to pass this amendment. I would like to ask: Who would be responsible for enforcement of such a quagmire? What agency licenses exports of food? What agency would be responsible for monitoring where in the world those products went and what specific requirements were placed on them by the countries receiving those products? Assuming such information is actually obtained, that information is likely proprietary business information, exempted from disclosure between agencies by the Freedom of Information Act. Here in the United States, we rely on the FDA for responsibility for food inspection, but as many proponents of mandatory warning labels are quick to point out, the FDA inspects less than 1 percent of the products. Are the proponents just doing this for show? Or do they actually expect an agency to fulfill its enforcement obligation? If so, has this amendment been scored? I can only imagine what the cost will be to the agency to ensure that labels mandated by this amendment's sponsors are accurate. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would take us backwards. It would require an even more patchwork set of rules. I urge that we get to uniformity. The logistics of enforcing every product label and their counterpart in 1 of 195 other countries in the world would be costly and a waste of taxpayer dollars. I urge the defeat of this ill-conceived effort to punish American businessmen and -women who are doing their best to grow our economy. I reserve the balance of my time