it has absolute principle. there are no situations that are issued under any circumstances. the release of this report is to be commended only by shining a light on what happens in the top area i think we can stop this torture and this is one of the important principles to promote human dignity and to protect the human rights. now this has started a conversation not only in the united states around the world come and i am urging that all of the countries particularly the political leaders and the security officials to protect

the human dignity. now this report has been released this should be the start of a discussion on how the international community can completely stamp out this torture practice. >> in addition of the fact that he wanted to see the response on the ground, do you have any specifics to share with the people which is vaccine medicine. and if you don't mind [inaudible]

>> as i have said already, the main visit is clear that i just wanted to demonstrate my strong solidarity on behalf of the whole international community that people have been without much help there for that therefore that is why the united nations really mobilized in an unprecedented way the method of support of the financial and logistics providing all that we can do to treat them.

as you know we've stated the five principles, the five poses in establishing. first to stop this virus and second to take all the necessary measures to provide the necessary essential services and preserve stability in the country particularly in economically and to prevent the further outbreak. so all of these proposals are being met where our strategy has been properly placed i think we have been seeing the results. there is no time to be

complacent. we have to made sure that the case should be treated. that's why i'm going to meet all the leaders and i'm going to meet the staff on. i tried to visit the facilities and provide the key countries like the united states, united kingdom, france and some other places, local treatment centers and i also meet with the un staff. but to share my strong support i will discuss with the member states what needs to be done. as i said, we are in need of much more support logistical and financial support.

the speed of the virus is in a sense of pacing with the community has been doing. this is my main purpose. i would have an opportunity of meeting you upon my return with what i've seen and what the committee needs to do more. [inaudible] we are continuing [inaudible]

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

>> thank you mr. secretary-general. the palestinian people have been subject to the occupation. occupation is illegal as you know it you keep saying we are proud to be a custodian of the un security council resolution and those of the general assembly. there are many generalissimo the resolution mandates for the people who are under the occupation to resist occupation. >> the question, please. >> my question is do you agree that it is fine now to speak for the palestinian state and the du also agree that they have the

right to resist occupation? >> as you said in the security council resolutions it is up to the member states have responded that he should rest with the member states to implement and a bind by this resolution particularly when the security council resolutions are binding. unfortunately because of the lack of political will of the concerned parties palestinian people have not been able to enjoy what they should enjoy. that's why the negotiation is important. but it seems to be still in a level of political will to sit

down together and there is a lack of dialogue. therefore it is necessary to the parties concerned should take very careful and sincere positions to create and refrain from taking unilateral actions. of course this has been clearly defined by the united nations resolutions by the security council and therefore it is more important that while the communities are now ready to support the course is after all the two parties concerned to sit down and be ready to engage in the dialogue.

i have been meeting with the premaster numerous times and i've been repeating them. and they have no other alternatives but to live in peace and security harmoniously. they have to live together. that is their destiny. >> one last brief question. >> thank you. >> in light of the lessons of the international community has learned from the outbreak, and wonder if you can comment on whether and how the world health organization can be reformed to respond more quickly and aggressively for the next outbreak.

>> this is a question that member states will have to discuss. one of the specialized agencies has its own membership and they have their own way of addressing the issues of how they can reform and how they can change their systems to be more effective. i am aware of that raised in the wake of the ebola outbreaks i hope they will discuss this matter. as the secretary general i'm always ready to work closely with the specialized agencies. thank you very much. >> thank you very much.

>> arizona senator sent this picture short time ago as this comes to an end. it together again just before leaving cuba this morning after being held captive for five years in a a cuban prison alan gross is back in the united states at the andrews air force base outside of a 45 minutes ago. along with that president obama said the u.s. and cuba have agreed to reestablish diplomatic relations and open economic travel times. c-span. the statement live and you are welcome to offer your thoughts and reactions on c-span but right now senator marco rubio is holding a conference reacting to the situation. it is live right now on c-span. your reaction after when he completes his comments. also there is a conference scheduled with democrat congressman chris van hollen

that starts in about one hour at 1:45 and we are planning to take coverage of that on the c-span networks. we will keep you updated on the coverage plans. we also understand that we are planning a news conference this afternoon and we are working to bring that to you on the c-span networks. also coming up live today we will be covering a news conference with federal reserve chair janet yellen following the open market committee meeting and that is also live right here on c-span2. the food safety director told the house lawmakers that genetically engineered foods are safe as the conventional counterparts. food safety groups have been calling for the fda to place limits on the use of the materials or gmo that have been commonly used by farmers since the 1990s. this house energy subcommittee meeting is about 90 minutes.

>> the committee will come to order. before we begin, i would like to take a moment to address the guests in the audience. first of all, thank you all for coming. we think engaged citizens are a welcome and valuable part of the political process. and i wish that every hearing drew this much interest. the purpose of this hearing is to examine the role in regulating genetically modified food ingredients and it is an opportunity for this committee to ask questions and have a thoughtful discussion on this issue. it demonstrates the interest in the topic and we welcome that interest in your attendance here today. i do want to remind our guest at

the chair is obligated under the rules of the house and the rules of the committee to maintain the order preserved in the committee room, and i know that we all may not agree on this topic, but i ask that we all abide by these rules and be respectable of our audience members and our viewers and witnesses, and the chair appreciates the audience cooperation and maintaining orders. we have a full discussion on this important issue. the chair will now recognize himself for an opening statement. it but genetically modified organisms or gmos is a term that refers to ingredients sourced from crops that have been engineered to express certain traits or characteristics. a number of people have an instinctive distrust of food

that has been genetically modified and we are asking questions about its safety. others see great promise for better nutrition in the alleviation of hunger around the world. there are sensitivities around this issue and all issues regarding the food we eat and feed our children and our grandchildren. it is our job as policymakers particularly as it relates to the public health to establish a factually and scientifically sound foundation prior to taking any action that would impact consumers and our economy and this hearing provides a great opportunity to put their rhetoric aside and do just that. gmos have been a part of the u.s. food supply since the mid-1990s and in fact as much as 90% of our corn, sugar beat and is leading crops are now

genetically engineered and about 70% of the processed foods contain such ingredients. the u.s. food and drug administration oversees the safety and labeling of products from plant sources including those from genetically engineered crops. these products must meet the same safety requirements as food from traditionally. the food and drug administration currently has a consultation process in place in which developers of the underlining technologies address any outstanding safety or other regulatory issues with the agency prior to marketing their products. the fda completed approximately 100 of such consultations. no products have gone to market after a safety related questions have been resolved. according to the fda commissioner the fda has not

seen evidence of safety risks associated with genetically modified foods. further, the fda has no basis for concluding that the bioengineered foods are different from other foods in any meaningful way and the world health organization have stated that no effects on human health have been shown as the result of consumption of such foods. in fact they can grow faster, resists diseases and drought, lover of their reliance on pesticides, costs less and prove more nutritious. even president obama stated that advances in the genetic engineering of plants have provided an honest benefits to american farmers and that the investment in the enhanced biotechnology is an essential component of the solution to

solve the most pressing agricultural problems. nonetheless, there have recently been a number of state initiatives calling for the mandatory labeling of food products that contain gmos. and we will hear today from a number of witnesses who can speak to such actions and the impact they would have. food labeling is a matter of interstate commerce and therefore a federal issue that rightfully resides with congress and the fda. i am concerned that a patchwork of 50 separate schemes would be in practical such as the system would create confusion among the consumers and result in higher prices and fewer options. finally, i want to commend the representative for their leadership on these issues.

it's on the health subcommittee meeting to sit with us today and in this hearing. without objection, so i would like to welcome the witnesses for being here today and i look forward to the testimony. and at this time, i yield five minutes to the ranking member in the opening state. >> many americans are interested in the labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients there are a number of considerations involved. the perspective on the issue setup you can engage in an honest and respectful discussion

growing the consumers the food and drug administration issued a policy statement on the regulatory oversight and billing policies in 1992 and issued the draft guidance on the voluntary labeling. i understand why it goes into the database for people to make informed decisions about what they needed information and and that's why they've required nutrition facts and most have technical names for ingredients whenever possible so that it is in fact useful. so they are mandating the labeling of the foods and the three states that the law on the books for many more have considered doing so through the ballot initiative or the state

legislation and none of the states labeling have gone into effect yet. while such give voice to the many that are concerned, i am troubled by the effects of this inconsistent state standard. america's agricultural production and the distribution chain is a fairly cost the state lines and conflict in revelations could cause difficulties resulting in the higher cost for consumers. like the advances in medical technologythat we deal that has a subcommittee to subcommittee of the innovations in biotechnology have a potential to address current problems and improve the quality the quality-of-life for people across the globe. it's represented in the american people and we must be sure that the application of the technologies isn't paying consumers at risk and that information is available for those seeking it out. indian science must remain the arbiter of any concerns in the regulations must reflect a rigorous evaluation of the evidence. so again i'm glad that we are having this hearing and i look forward to the testimony and

evaluate how any regulatory approach would best serve the interest of the american people. i would like to yield the remainder of my time to this gentleman from north carolina. >> thank you for yielding and mr. tremaine for your kind words and thank you all for coming today. mr. chairman, access to safe and affordable food is important to every consumer in america. i think at least we can agree on the fact. i begin this conversation by saying that i represent an agricultural district of north carolina. it's also a low income district and so i have a very keen interest in the subject. a large portion of my district is agriculture. farmers all across my state and across my district reminded me that north carolina farmers don't just grow crops. they grow crops for americans and so the food supply chain is

vast and interconnected. the work necessary to get an apple or ear of corn to the produce section of the supermarket is absolutely staggering from seed to farmers to wholesaler to processor to distributor even to the store shelf. it's easy to appreciate the intricate system and i am beginning to learn more and more about this but several states have proposed regulations and i worry that it would cause significant disruption to the food supply and it would cause confusion and uncertainty and will result in an increased cost at the checkout line depending on what the state originations mandates separate supply chains would likely have to be developed and at every step all the way. you can bet that they would be cost to the capacitor into the consumers of showing that the

average cost of a $500 a year for many of my constituents that would be impossible. so i've worked with my friend and others to propose what i believe is a measured approach that gives consumers certainty while taking into account the delicate balance and the shiites shies and complexities of the food supply chain. the proposal is very simple. the fda and and of the nation's foremost food safety authority should have the liberty to require labeling on genetically modified food and establish federal standards and where they live or work will clearly understand the object. finally i will say mr. chairman that i will be the first to say this proposal is not perfect. this proposal is not perfect. it will certainly evolve as it progresses. we do not legislate on a vacuum but i believe that the national labeling standard because the most sense for the highly

integrated and interdependent. i'm confident that we will take what we have learned from today's hearing as well as the input that we are sure to receive to inform our work as we move forward. we need commonsense legislation. thank you and i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the vice chair and the gentle lady from tennessee for five minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman. the people that will be harmed the most by the anti-gmo movement are those that can least fight against it. it is developed with a genetic and genuine. one of the benefits to this right and the reason it's called golden rice is that it has a level of vitamin a that isn't found in others. golden rice has said millions of starving people around the world and additionally, prevented blindness and death because of

the presence of the vitamin a. it's been shown to be safe and get the activists have opposed its use. simply because they do not like the idea of the genetically modified food. farmers have genetically modified food for centuries. farmers would breed cattle to get the best traits into the crops were developed which are most resistant to drought. george washington carver did research and taught at tuskegee for over 40 years. while there he developed techniques to improve soil to give farmers alternative cash crops come and prove the nutrition of people living in the south. he did this by experimenting with a different variety of peanuts and sweet potatoes. of course the different varieties are simply products with different genetic makeup. to bring reason into this discussion in different

varieties of food my colleagues and i have introduced legislation. hr 44 for the food labeling act of 2014 introduced with myself would prohibit genetically modified plants intended for food usage to be sold without first complying with the safety review process at the fda. under this bill if the fda were to find the difference between the new product and the comparable bond gmo food the fda would require a label. the bill would do the following. number one, advanced with safety come address the questions consumers have about the safety of the food by requiring the fda to conduct a safety review of all new traits before they are introduced in the marketplace. number two, informative servers and help them make sense of the

labeling claims and choices in the marketplace by asking to establish federal standards for companies. the term natural by requiring the fda to define the term for its use on the food and beverage products, thus creating a consistent legal framework to inform the consumer choice. fourth, eliminate confusion, which is what all good legislation should do is remove the uncertainty of the 50 state patchwork. thank you for holding the hearing. and at this time i won't yield my remaining time to mr. pompeo. thank you for being sponsors of this bill and you can see today that they are engaged in a

bipartisan effort for this incredibly important issue. i want to thank the witnesses. to do good work and to the consumers across the country thank you for being here today. this is a bill that is needed and folks all across america can afford. we in america have known for a long time that innovation and technology, the food prices will rise dramatically. we won't be doubled to deep people in the world which is something that we take pride in an america to show the absence of the legislation and average families will go up by $500. while i know that for some that isn't a lot of money, there are a lot of folks either present for whom that is an awful lot of money and we are living from day from day-to-day and paycheck to paycheck to make sure food prices and one of the things they have to make hard decisions

about from time to time doesn't it even more difficult in this economy that we know is struggling so much. and it's also to help folks that are the producers and ticket to cattle ranchers are far more whatever it may be to the store shelves so that they can be profitably to continue to invest in their products so that america can continue to be the leader in the production of the food in an affordable way. there've been lots of research and studies and even those that opposed the bill don't make much of a case about the science and that is what the fda is all about is getting the science right and this gives them the opportunity to continue to review that and that is good policy and will make our food supply chain enviable all around the world. >> the ranking member of the full committee mr. waxman five minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman. today's hearing is on a topic that many americans have strong

feelings. in 20 years ago, the first of genetically engineered food that slow savory tomato went on the market today and the vast majority of the camelot and the beats and papaya are genetically engineered. all of these have been assessed by the food and drug administration in the voluntary consultation process. they are the traditionally bred counterparts. they contain ingredients from the genetically engineered or plants they remain uncomfortable with these foods and want mandatory labeling so they can avoid them. as we consider the questions on

today's hearing i will examine them in the context of some important principles that i have long supported. first, i believe it is critical that our actions are based on science as with so many other matters used that we consume every day, we need to rely on the expertise of the fda and other scientific regulatory agencies. second, when we consider requiring labeling on food, that label should provide useful science-based information to consumers. and i certainly be made that it should enable consumers to make informed choices. i fought hard to pass legislation that gave the consumers useful information about the nutritional content.

all three of these concepts are in place today and i think that we should examine each. on the first concept, what does the science tell us about ge foods. we need to make sure that they don't affect the safety or the nutrition of the food from those plants. ge food doesn't differ in a significant way from the traditional food why should there be a label that marks it as different? if there are safety questions about a food and then it should be allowed on the market at all. i look forward to hearing more from the fda and other witnesses today. nevertheless, i understand people that people may still want information about how the

food is produced. so let's forget the second concept of whether there is a way to give them meaningful and useful science-based information on the one hand i'm concerned if people have information they want or need. on the other hand, i am concerned the labeling could be in be inherently misleading. mandatory labeling if the government is required must mean that ge foods are risky or somehow fundamentally different from the non- ge foods and today scientists have concluded that they are not. furthermore, given that up to 80% of packaged food contains these ingredients come if we require labels, most food on the shelves would have a label declaring the presence of these ingredients. i am not sure what good that does. under the current system if the

consumers want to avoid these foods, they can. they can buy organic food which by law cannot contain these ge ingredients. or they can search out the foods that manufacturers have certified and labeled as non- ge. that's more targeted information may in fact be more usable and i would like to hear what the witnesses think about that. now let's turn to the third principle of the states to make decisions that are right for their citizens. absent a compelling policy reason to the contrary. even if there is not a compelling reason to require the labeling at the federal level that doesn't necessarily mean that congress should tell vermont and other states that they cannot require such labeling. i've always believe states should have the right to act in the interest of the residences and i want to hear from the industry witness witnesses white vermont legislation and

potentially similar legislation and others are harmful in the public interest that congress should overwrite them. absent a compelling reason i support the states to make their own laws and govern themselves. i remain open to hearing the views of all of the witnesses today on these three points and any other plans pertaining to this issue as today's hearing will be interesting and informative and i think the chairman for holding it. >> this concludes the opening statement of the members has always been written opening statements of the members will be made a part of the record. i have unanimous consent request the statement from the corn refinery association to enter into the record without objection so ordered. we have two panels today and i would like to call the first panel. and i will introduce him at this time. we have mr. michael landa in

safety and applied nutrition of the u.s. food and drug administration. thank you for coming today. you will have five minutes to summarize your testimony and it will be placed and director of. so at this point you are recognized for five minutes for your summary. >> ranking member and members of the subcommittee i'm the director of the center for food safety and nutrition at the food and drug administration. thank you for the opportunity to be here today for the genetically engineered or ge foods. over the last 20 years, fda has reviewed about reviewed by the information on more than 150 plant derived foods. these range from herbicide beans to, what will with a modified

fatty acid profile. based on our evaluations, we are confident that the marketplace today market place today are as safe as conventional counterparts. the selection and the improvement of the plant for agricultural use has been going on for thousands of years. >> that's better. >> typically it has involved crossbreeding and many of the foods that are already common in the diet such as hybrid corn or nectarines came from plant varieties that were developed using such conventional techniques. but during the process of undesirable traits such as the poor yield or disease resistance may appear. these unwanted traits can often be eliminated through additional selective reproduction, but the process is painstaking and time-consuming. scientists are now able to

produce a plant with new advantageous characteristics. these techniques give scientists the ability to isolate specific genes of interest and introduce them into their corresponding traits and plans without introducing undesirable genes or traits. this improvement from the plant can produce produce the time needed to develop a new variety and expand the range of the new proteins on other substances that can be introduced into the plant. any of these genetic modification techniques has the potential to change the composition of food in a matter that is probative to food safety. the fda however has well-established scientific procedures for evaluating the safety of new foods including any new substances in food and the guidelines help address any safety concerns prior to marketing. fda regulates the safety of all foods including those the arrived from the plant.

we call it the food and drug act. they develop from the genetically engineered varieties such as fruits, vegetables, grains and other byproducts that are subject to the same safety requirements as the food derived from them on ge plants. the agency relies on the two sections of the food and drug act to ensure the safety of the food and food ingredients produced by genetic engineering. the adult division provision in section four of the act and the food additive provisions in section 409. the manufacturers and distributors are responsible for taking the steps necessary to ensure that the products are safe to be at the wall places primary response ability for ensuring the safety of the food on the industry. to help the developers of the food derived from the plants to comply with their obligation under the food and drug act and the fda regulations, the agency encourages them to participate in a voluntary consultation process prior to the commercial

distribution. since the process was created, the developers of the plans completed the process more than 100 times as they sought to introduce the plants into the u.s. market. the consultation begins early in the development of the agency arises to its tests would be appropriate and to assess the safety of the food. after studies are completed a summary is provided for its review. they expected the developers to analyze the composition of the food from the new crop variety to ensure that any changes compared to food are appropriately considered and addressed before marketing such foods. as a part of the review analysis would consider whether any newly introduced protein is likely to be toxic and whether it is important to food safety or nutrition. we also consider whether any newly introduced as a food

additive. example includes the name of the food and the crop that it is the arrived. the source identities, functions and the stability of the genetically introduced material. the purpose of the modification and expected composition characteristics of the food. the identity and the function of the substance is introduced by the genetic material. the comparison of the composition characteristics of the food derived in the parental variety. and information on whether the genetic modification altered the allergic or toxic potential of the food. let me speak for a moment or so of the fda regulation of labeling. we regulate the labeling including labeling on the foods under the food and drug act. we established that the food is disbanded if it is labeling, false or misleading in any particular. the act also provides that labeling is misleading if it

fails to review material facts to the representation made by suggestive of labeling or number two fails with respect to consequences whether that is a labeled use or customary use. historically they are taking the position that the use of the genetic engineering and the food is normally not by a self material information in a meeting of the food and drug act. the courts have held that absent of the facts are the difference fact or the difference in the food derived from the source. the act doesn't require labeling indicating that it's been developed for the genetic engineering. ..

is the agency more or less confident today in the safety of the underlying technology? >> it's confidence remains strong. it has been and remains strong. >> how do you know that genetically engineered foods are no different in terms of safety than their conventional counterparts? >> we know of is the son of the reviews we conduct, looking at genetic material, products of that material, new proteins for

example, toxicity, potential toxicity, halogen this city, chemical composition to see if it is different from the conventional counterparts, we look at the safety of the old food if you will, we look to see if there are any differences in nutrients that might require disclosure for example. >> how long typically does your evaluation take? >> i will have to get back to you with detailed information if i may. >> any material differences between genetically engineered ingredients and those derived from traditional the red cross? >> in general no. there have not been such

differences. >> does the fda support various state, legislative and ballot measures that would require the labeling of genetically engineered foods or would these initiatives interfere with fda's authority over food production or labeling? >> we have not reviewed the initiatives, don't have any view about them. we don't know if they would interfere or not. >> would state specific labeling requirements change anything as far as your evaluation is concerned? >> i do not believe so. >> all right.

let me ask if there currently is a lack of consensus about the validity of the research and science behind the safety of foods derived from genetically engineered plant varieties? >> i think there is not. i think there's a consensus. >> there is a consensus in the scientific community. all right. at this time i will recognize five minute for mr. klone. >> some who oppose mandatory labeling argue that it would be misleading. they argue such a requirement would be taken to imply the government considers food from g e plants to be so fundamentally different from food from non ge plants as to warrant a special designation and i guess i agree

if the ge designation had to look like a warning it would be misleading. however in the next panel, the organization is not asking for anything like a warning label but rather a modest disclosure on the back of the package. i would like to get your view based on your experience with food labeling weathered is possible to design a mandatory ge designation in such a way as to be innocuous. those who look for it, those who don't care about genetic engineering would have no reason to pay attention to it. i am not asking whether fda would require such a label with using any form of mandatory labeling would be appropriate from a scientific perspective. if congress were to decide the best way to avoid labeling requirements would be to impose a federal labeling requirement. do you think it would be possible to do so to be neutral

and would not tarnish the product in both of those answers, experience with radiation labeling whether we could learn from that experience? >> i don't -- i have not thought about the question you posed with respect to the nature of a statement about the g e labeling. i don't think the agency has considered that question because our focus has been on whether there was a difference. >> the material -- >> allowing us to a required disclosure. one way of looking at that question is whether there is data on similar efforts and whether one could design a study to answer that question. fasano people could look at fit different formulations of labeling and you would learn what they would take away from

different formulations. >> the reason i ask the question, don't know if you can answer it at this point. lot of people who approached me don't make the argument that there is the scientific difference but just -- just that they should know. >> again, maybe one could develop different formulations and do experimental studies surrounding them. the types of studies that are typically done over the internet with panels that are set up, large numbers. to see what people would take away from a different mach labels. >> i know you say the consultation process is voluntary, but what does that mean in practice? if it is voluntary why would companies choose to use it?

do you have an estimate how many manufacturers choose not to use it? what are the pros and cons? >> for people intending to commercialize products we think those people to come to us for several reasons. there is the basic statutory requirement on company's to market food that is safe. another is we learn a great deal from the p a and others about what is going on in this area which is another incentive for people to come to less. finally we think growers are going to be reluctant to use seeds where there isn't the sort of no questions letter from us because at the end of the growing season they have a crop that turns out to be either unlawful or unmarketable because questions have arisen.

better to start with a product that has been through the consultation process. there are lots of drivers that make a voluntary process people subscribe to, people who are intending to commercialize. >> the fda hasn't required be genetically engineered label because they don't believe the information is material. does fda have the authority to change its assessment if information is not material? would you have the authority to do that? >> certainly in a given case. the policy we have been discussing has been in place for roughly 20 years but we have been asked to change it. we have several citizen petitions asking to change our view on the law with respect to materiality and asking us to change our view with respect in some cases to the facts and we are considering those petitions.

we haven't responded yet. we have the authority to change a position as long as the change is appropriately grounded in science and interpretation of the law. >> thank you, mr. chairman. recognize the vice-chairman of the full committee for questions. >> thank you. mr. landa, thank you for your time. i find this an absolutely fascinating debate. so appreciative the fda would take the time tutto with the sonnet. i grew up in south mississippi with a grandmother who when she went to college at the turn of the century, the nineteenth century chose to audit agriculture classes. in buying a farm and with her savings from being a teacher and

married, she has five bolognese and my mother, during the depression she helps feed our home town. being someone who enjoys growing things and very active, going on to be part of a crop judging team i learned to appreciate what goes in to having good looking food. we eat with our eyes. i grew to appreciate, what we would learn from my grandmother. it would be more drought resistant, would take less chemicals, take less pesticides, things of that nature and the importance of that, that you had a good looking and good tasting food product that is readily and easily spoiled. i come to this debate from that

background and in our district i visit a lot of the farmers' markets. everyone's in a while someone will come up and talk about genetically engineered food, genetically modified food and i enjoy asking them what that means to them. i have found it fascinating that it means something different to nearly everyone that i talk to. we don't have that federal standard. we hope that you with the fda are able to work with us on this. basically everything we eat is genetically modified whether it is:0 week fcorn week for the an of tomatoes you want to eat a

regional corn or barley it won't me give you a yield. moving forward let's go to mr pallone's question on labeling the. i would love to hear from you what you all at the fda, what your team think should be conveyed in those labels to the consumer? what should be there about health and safety and nutritional content of those products? >> the statute tells us as a general matter that labeling is not to be false or misleading. that is the basic proposition. there have been many changes to the law, we write the nutrition facts panel which has

information which makes macronutrients and micronutrients, and proposed earlier this year to do that and we are reviewing comments on it. >> when do you anticipate having those? >> i would certainly hope the agencies could issue final rules dating nutrition facts by 2016. it is a complicated -- it is called informal rulemaking which is more difficult and formal rulemaking the is resource intensive. >> i want to get too a couple of other things. i am certain you all go through reams of information on analyzing data, i wonder how often do your fda analysts go

back in and request additional information? >> i can't answer is that but i will get that information for you. >> does the fda distinguish food based on the method of reading material composition of the food? >> not for labeling purposes. >> are you satisfied your agency is capable of understanding genetic engineering and determining whether or not a plant is safe? >> yes. >> i yield back. >> i recognize the ranking member of the full committee for five minutes for questions. >> mr. landa, in many of the articles people claim that the science is unsettled, controversial and new with the implication that there may be unknown risks and consumers are justified in being uneasy with ge foods and yet from your testimony we get a different

impression. however, while you point out genetic engineering is just one of many techniques used in planting, breeding, i don't think fda has a consultation process for any of the others. how new is the science behind g e foods and what are the risks from them and if genetic engineering is not especially risky why do you encourage companies to go through your consultation process prior to marketing foods from ge plants? >> it is largely -- there certainly is some possibility, for example, of a material difference. i think we identified one or another product where there wasn't a safety issue but there was a difference in how the food performed in the consumer's hands. it had to do with prideability.

and wheat have completed 100 consultations. we were asked about submitting -- withdrew. i think en general process which has been in place for sometime was one that enabled us to learn and to build confidence and we would hope to transmit some confidence in this technology. >> is this a new area of science? >> no. it is decades old. >> as you know, many consumers believe they have a right to know if the food was manufactured using genetically engineered ingredients irrespective of all the science in the world showing them to be no different from non g e ingredients.

i would like to understand more about such a requirement and how it would fit in with fda's traditional stance toward labeling requirements. if congress were to respond to this consumer demand and pass a law requiring the labeling of genetically engineered food, hallwood mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods compare with existing labeling requirements such as to reveal the presence of allergens in a food or that of food has been irradiated. would fda be concerned about a new law that requires labeling of chief foods and if so why? >> there isn't any administration position on such legislation. it would be new for us. we would implement it as best we could. the question it would raise would be what is the limiting principal?

if what animates this is right to know, the question then becomes what is it people do not have a right to know on a food label? i am not sure how one answers that question. >> some foods that are irradiated, why would anybody irradiate their food? why would a manufacturer irradiate food? >> for safety reasons. to keep the food from spoiling. >> i suspect -- speightss are irradiated for example. >> is there any harm from that? any consequences that are problematic? >> no. >> yet we require labeling. why do we require labeling on foods that have been irradiated? >> it has been thought that irradiation, as up process could change some properties of the food. that was the thinking behind that. >> there's no evidence of that.

>> i would have to look at the -- what we said at the time we should the labeling requirements. >> why is this any different? you don't think there is a problem, you said there may be a problem but you don't know of a problem. what is the difference between informing people their spices have been irradiated if they want to know that information even if you don't think it is helpful for them to know it? >> i think at the time with radiation we thought there was a possibility of a change in characteristics of the food which people would not know about. we do not think that is the case with genetic engineering. >> you think we should remove labels from irradiated foods? >> the agency has issued a proposal to do that. is not finalized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> recognize the gentleman from illinois for five questions.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. the question i have is i understand the debate, but do you know of any state that has the capability to do the research and the findings to the same standard as the fda? >> i don't but i wouldn't have any reason to know that. >> i am from the state of illinois and we can't do it. there may be one, maybe california has some capability. my guess is smaller states, they don't have the ability to do the research that you do and that is part of this whole should states be able to have their own

labeling restrictions and requirements, because as we found, it is based upon the motion and not based upon the scientific evaluation. let me ask about, do you distinguish foods based upon the method of breeding or the material composition of the food? >> we don't require labeling based on methods of production alone. >> why not? >> we have found it is not material to safety or nutritional composition. >> i appreciate that. in the case of sugar, sugar processors require to label, with the refined stable sugar

comes from -- i guess the question is our sugar processes are required to label whether refined table sugar comes from a certain species of planned? >> i am sorry. >> you don't require fine table sugar to label whether it comes from sugar beets or cane? >> no. >> why? >> it is a question of materiality to safety. >> so if we were -- with the consumer is get any benefit if that labeling requirements for fine table sugar also had a requirement, this is fine table sugar or sugar cane by table sugar. >> we focus on the attribute of the food as the consumer would

eat it. >> for the genetically engineered ingredients in food today, is there any evidence that they vary in their objective characteristics in any meaningful or uniform way? >> node, not as a class. >> can you explain why fda's regulatory focus is on the food or food product as opposed to the process on which it is grown. >> in the end it is the food that we each. >> i think you will keep getting the same questions from members your trying to understand the food and drug administration coming before us on a lot of aspects. you are our trusted advisers, we respect the job you do. i know this is it difficult emotional debate for some folks on both sides because it deals with some individual consumers,

it deals with the agricultural community that many of us represent. we have to have impartial observer based upon health and safety affects. and i yield back. >> prime -- i recognize you for questions. >> thank you for your appearance and your testimony. i understand the fda's position that the drug and cosmetic act, by which a plant is developed is not material information about food from that plant. in their testimony, and many consumers do believe foods labelled as natural, are not genetically engineered and sometimes by such foods because

of that belief. they also say many such foods do contain any ingredients. and if many consumers say the term -- make purchasing choices based on that belief, on a food label, should be considered a representation that the food is not g e? that is the past question. continue just for a little bit more. it is my only question actually. wouldn't the use of the term natural on a food containing ge ingredients be as the statute says failing to reveal factual material in light of such representation if it does not state that it contains g e ingredients? in other words, this is the

question, even though the use of genetic engineering may not be material information per se doesn't it become material information in those circumstances in which the rest of the labeling of the chief food implies that the food does not contain an g e ingredients? if you can sort that out kudos to you. this is a topic about like to hear from you and take your time. >> there is a short answer to this. we have several petitions related to the question of what is natural including one going to the very question you are getting at which is, is a food that contains genetically engineered ingredient for ingredient deride from genetically engineered plant, a food that may properly be labeled natural? a debate about that, we have been petitioned to say yes, i am

sure we were petitioned to say no, to establish the definition for natural and we are considering those petitions. that is all i can say at the moment. >> can you shed any light on this topic for the sake of our constituents as to where you are going? i agree it is very confusing. >> one possibility, to take you back a little bit the agency embarked on effort to define natural years ago. that did not result in code 05 definition. it resulted in a statement in the preamble that natural can't be synthetic. that was the language. we ask to develop a definition, i have been asked on many occasions and said we don't have the resources to do that.

we have petitions before us. if we decide to reconsider it this issue, it will necessarily be a public process whether we would embark on a rulemaking which has to be a public process for guidance there will be some public process if we decide to revisit this. >> i applaud that. i think the public is already engaged and would be a welcoming, this is my opinion, from what my constituents are telling me, that they are already engaged in a signal from fda that maybe you don't have black-and-white answers to give state you are seriously considering this, we can carry down this kind of conversation throughout the country. it appears to me consumers are clearly confused by the current labeling system. we can all agree on that.

it is complicated today and they are wrecking the-making purchasing decisions based on i think misleading run clear labeling. i am not blaming necessarily here, but it leads to a state of confusion and i hope you can find resources in fda to take a broader look at what is happening with respect to consumers's experiences so they can have confidence in the system that we have and work with you to strengthen the labeling system and the confusion we are talking about. i yield back. >> the gentlelady, i recognize the gentleman from virginia for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a fair number of foods are labeled non gm 0. is there a distinction between

genetically modified and genetically engineered? >> as a technical matter, gmo refers to an organism as opposed to genetic engineering which we think of as having to do with modern biotechnology. >> one of the concerns that i have and want to know if it is a concern for you, i come from a family where just about half of us have some kind of food allergy. if you are changing proteins around and you have things that ought for the general public are recognized as safe, and you able in what you do to distinguishes a protein that someone added to a product that they may not know the protein has been included. >> that is part of the evaluation process and if there

were to be an addition that might prompt an allergic reaction that one would not expect, we would require a label disclosure. >> you would pick those things which people are highly allergic to or there is a significant percentage of folks that have a problem with and you can't put the strawberry ingredient into this? >> or we would require disclosure most likely would be. >> i apologize if i missed this in one of your earlier answers. are you looking at the possibility for those who may be concerned saying or labeling a product as something that is in fact that it is genetically engineered or genetically modified in some way. having companies that want to, have some problems where they can actually say we have abused all products that are not genetically engineered or modified. >> we have draft guidance since

2001 on a voluntary labeling so there isn't any prohibition on voluntary label that your food does not contain ge ingredients so the basic requirement is a statement not be false or misleading. >> you indicated it is a consensus that this was not something that was dangerous if i understood your testimony correctly and yet i know there are a number of countries around world that have concerns about products and ban exports if they think there is cross pollination. explain why they are concerned. >> different countries have different regulatory assistance. obviously there are different cultures with different attitudes toward different aspects of foods from production to consumption to preparation and everything else. >> have any of those countries had studies that indicated there

was some danger to the -- >> not to my knowledge, no. >> i appreciate that and i think you said earlier you are looking at finalizing gadgets in 2016. >> nutrition facts? yes. >> all right. a little time left into a different subject but it is tangentially related. would you do about grocery stores fixing food and selling things and doing nutrition facts and then you get into the hole allergens and g or gmo foods. how do you deal with all that? >> the processed food is subject to nutrition facts. what we called restaurant type food made in a grocery store is subject when it becomes effective to menu labeling

requirements. >> even though i am concerned about it and i might not eat the food if i knew what was then and i am not sure, grocery store will comply with that when they may be using different ingredients and somebody walks up and says can i have x y or z, it might be easier like a mcdonald's where they's ingredients and everyone has a label, grocery store may not have that capability. >> we're talking standard menu items. >> a specialty item they would have an exemption. >> the requirement is established, 20 more establishments and retail establishments is the language in the statute and standard menu items. >> i yield back. >> the next gentleman, i recognize mr. butterfield for questions. >> let me remark on this statement about this being a

fascinating debate, this is certainly a fascinating debate by any measure. in my former life i served as a trial judge in north carolina and every day for 15 years i had to look at the evidence and had to decide the facts. that was my job description and i did it for 15 years. i try to do that in this debate and i read large amounts of well-informed publications over the last several months. and jeep plants are safe as any other foods. i need to interpose this question. and foods derived from ge plants, as safe as other foods. you mentioned throughout your testimony is there any scintilla of evidence that these are unsafe? >> i want to make sure i heard

you correctly? any evidence to suggest these foods are unsafe? >> yes. the g e foods are unsafe. >> not to our knowledge, no. >> how large is your agency? how large is the division that handles this task? >> the office that handles this task has made in 1854140 people, but not all of that. these people handle a variety of tasks related to food additives. >> the reason our politicians, courier employees at your agency. have you encountered anyone, to mandatory labeling. >> not sure i -- >> you talk to a lot of people formally and informally about this.

>> to advocate 50 separate sets of regulations and the district of columbia. >> i have not. >> no reason to encounter such a person. >> it seems illogical and irrational. from time to time, i don't see how that would never work even in california. >> the chair recognizes the gentlelady from illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have lots of passionate constituents who are very concerned about the products. i have experts that we will hear in the next panel who have great scientific credentials themselves who will argue about

consumer information being provided about ge products. i want to follow up on another word. you were talking about natural. i want to ask about material difference. you said that the fda could change the view that g e status of food is not material which that is the position right now, there is no material difference and that the agency is evaluating citizens's petitions that report to do that so could you elaborate on why the fda has not believe this is a material difference and what the court said anything about it, what different information might change or mind? >> we have not found differences in regard to safety or nutritional composition and again considering these foods as a class any difference in safety

or monroe original composition or any other actor meanwhile. >> what about food allergies? since we are putting in to the dna something from perhaps the peanut into something else? >> we would require disclosure. that would be material. >> with that prevention this consultation process from that particular formulation going to market? >> no. what would happen is there would be a disclosure of the allergic potential of the food. that would be a material fact. >> and a feed that i know mr. pitts said you could lose less pesticide, that is true though the fda does approve use of a seat that would make it more tolerant, a lot more pesticide. does the fda have any concerns

about that? >> i am not familiar with that matter. >> so material, meaning even in the peanut issue, a disclosure would be for -- required because of safety? >> typically with respect to allergens, yes. there is a statute, a 2004 statute and that requires disclosure of the big 8 allergens. if you were to find another allergen you would typically require disclosure of it rather than ban the food. >> who does the research? my constituents will say dupont and can we really trust these companies that benefit so much?

>> the data that i supplied to us are supplied to us by the companies doing the consulting and they will do studies, sometimes they will pay to have the studies done. we will say that is true across all fda regulated products. fda does research but it does not do research on the scales that would be required to support voluntary submissions much less marketing applications. >> let me ask one more question. does the food and drug administration have the authority to implement a mandatory pre-market approval process of any food to ensure it is safe for consumers? >> we propose a number of years

ago mentoring notification program for the types of products we have been talking about this morning, proposed rule is still in existence. we have not found the need to finalize it given how well the voluntary program works. that proposal, necessarily, maintained that we had the authority to establish a mandatory program. >> i will yield back. i can put more questions in writing, thank you. >> for clarification when you say it requires disclosure does that mean -- >> on the label, thank you. >> you are recognized for five minutes for questions. >> thank you, appreciate your

coming today. huge said mr. butterfield, from the fda perspective, no scientific evidence there's a health and safety issue with genetically engineered food. >> that is correct. >> i appreciate that. if there is consumer demand for wanting to now, if there is a producer of non gm low food, they can label their products as such that it is not gmo. >> as long as it is not false or misleading. >> of the marketplace wants this there's a private sector opportunity to provide that information to consumers if they so choose. >> that is correct. >> does the fda have regulatory authority over that type of labeling? >> it is the general authority that labeling must not be false or misleading. >> how long has the fda been

involved in managing food labeling? >> the provision that the false or misleading provision date from 1936 -- >> what stipulated so long? and how is the fda's role in terms of if i were in the food industry and a lot of people are in it how does the fda's role give signals to the food industry for how they do labeling? they look to you for guidance and consistency, is that correct? >> they look to the statute and the regulations and the guidance we each you and they certainly when they have party to the questions companies will call our experts in labeling. >> how do your guidances work? how do they work? >> typically on a significant issue we would issue a draft guidance, we would call for

comment on it. we would analyze the comments we received and issue its in final with or without changes or perhaps decide not to issue it at all or to reissue it with substantial changes. >> the food industry relies on that, that is where they get their direction how to do labeling for your guidance. >> the statute and then the regulation and guidance, yes. >> how do food manufacturers -- and want to address this issue of a national system versus the 50 state patchwork system. how does -- how do food manufacturers benefit from a national system? >> there is the benefit to uniformity. i think the answer is they will--they're better position to tell you how much of a benefit that is to them. ..

typically, we might call the manufacturer or issue the warning letter depending on how serious we thought the

infraction was. if the label were not corrected ultimately we can through the department of justice seized the product a product that is misbranded because others -- >> the tools in the toolbox that you have to address the choices. >> that's what i suggest. >> you -- there have been claims by some consumer groups that the fda is too closely aligned and cannot be trusted. how would you respond to that criticism? >> i've been there for almost 30 years. i work with people that have been there much longer by the way. i be leaving and my colleagues belief that we are civil

servants engaged in an honorable profession and activity that doesn't mean we get any decision right any more than anyone on the planet, but we try to make decisions to the best of our ability based on what the science tells us into the wall and deregulation and the sound policy. >> i appreciate the answer and i think you for your civil service i think there are a lot of folks in the agency and i appreciate your forthrightness. >> the gentleman from texas. >> ensuring the safety of my constituents continue to be the top priority and i hope that your testimony today we can come to a greater understanding bioengineering plays in the food supply and the economy.

mr. landa into for taking the time to be here and we appreciate your years of service and i find these issues often lead to passion and claims and i hope your years of experience can shed some light on the science of the genetically modified organisms into the safety process behind their approval. how many players are a reviewed each year to conduct those reviews? the >> we will have to get back to you on that. the number is about i think 103 in the five cases the submissions were withdrawn or people asked us to see through but i would have to get back to you on the figures and average time. >> dvd changing from the voluntary reviews and mandatory would change the number of the reviews performed each year? the

>> the coordinated framework was developed by the office of science and technology regulatory safety expertise in the federal government agencies like the fda and in the 30 years the agency has been a part of this are you satisfied that your agency is capable of and understanding, genetic engineering in determining whether or not a plant is safe? >> yes. >> do they have a staff and capability to be the voice of authority when it comes to the safety? sputnik in connection with split in connection with foods coming to us. >> food safety do feel that the framework requires adequate safeguards for consumer health and safety and gives companies the regulatory certainty they need to develop new products? >> yes. >> has the planned then deemed unsafe in the process? has the plant then deemed unsafe in the past voluntary review

process? >> not that i'm aware of. >> was the safety issue -- if it was a city due to the genetic engineering or is it other factors that you look for when you're inspecting -- >> i'm not aware of any consultation that has resulted in any findings of lack of safety. the ones that we have completed obviously we don't have any questions. there were a handful that didn't vote to completion they were either withdrawn or we were asked to stop the review. i don't know the details of the reasons. >> what happens when you were asked to stop the review? sputnik we stopped into the products do not go to market. >> so by stopping they do not go to market. effectively you are doing with the regulator is supposed to do. it was the framework rooted in the enactment like the food drug

and cosmetic act, federal meat inspection act, federal insecticide act and do you feel that the statutes all preempt the state requirements? >> there are cross statutes i just simply can't answer that question. >> have each of these statutes including the one from 1906 been instrumental in the consumer protection? >> if i could speak to the food and drug act the answer to the question is yes. it was amended in 38 multiple times since then. i think that in order to protect and promote the public health. >> do you have any suggestions on how we might look up some of these acts and make your job more effective? you can get back to us if he wants because i know that's our

job. >> to have the technical assistance whenever you ask us to do that. >> think you and i yield back my time. >> the gentleman from maryland. >> thank you. >> this is kind of a random question picking up on your allergy discussion. presumably now you are suggesting the most ingredients to which there is an allergy and any significance you require that it be disclosed. but the fda blood determined at some point if the number of people affected in terms of an allergy reached a certain percentage of the population then it would slip into banning the ingredient?

>> it is a disclosure requirement in the labeling as the chairman was reminding me earlier. so if we were to conclude that the food ingredient that is not on the list in the 2004 statute that had a certain threshold i can't answer what the threshold is in terms of percentage of population. we would require the disclosure of it on the label. >> so meeting a certain threshold in terms of requiring the disclosure. i'm asking you whether there is a threshold that one might need to be to meet that would ban it. if 95% of the population is allergic --

>> let me give you an ex- ample. the oldest provision in the law says among other things if the food contains a substance that renders the food ordinarily to health food is adulterated and prohibited from interstate commerce. so sure of course. if there was an ingredient that's 90% of the population, people that ate the food of the ingredient, we would ban the ingredient. >> i am curious in the industry has to go change labels in response to say some consultation exercise where he realizes that's the right thing to do or something more

prescriptive but you acquire first of all, isn't the case these labels get created in their static for extended periods of time or in your experience is labeling constantly being revised and updated but also in terms of the form and the way that it looks on packaging. >> i really don't know. i'm not familiar enough with the industry practice. >> in your 30 years, when was the last time that you can remember that something they did or some realization the food industry came to resulted in a significant across-the-board change in labeling?

>> the one that comes to mind is nutrition facts which is a regulation that is the basic part of days is now i guess about 20-years-old. we would require a disclosure of transit fast, eight, nine, ten years ago where as i mentioned earlier the nutrition facts. >> so if you revise what was required in the nutrition facts panel in this rulemaking period between now and 2016 and you decided there are some additional things that ought to be in there, then that would cut across the entire industry and a significant way in terms of revising its label.

>> the chair recognizes the gentleman answer questions. >> thank you mr. landa for being here today. i understand you are closer to the end of your service than the beginning. [laughter] >> thank you for your good work and for testimony this morning. it's been interesting to watch. i think that lots of folks have been surprised by the certainty that you are expressing and that there is a consensus. i've heard consensus that could be 70-30 or 90-10. tell me how much science there is that would refute the position with respect to the materiality of >> we do not believe that there is any question about safety based on the reviews that we've done.

but there are obviously scientists who differ with that kind of view. i don't know how many of them there are. >> but it's not folks but at least give significant credit that you would change your view with respect to the safety. >> to date we have seen nothing to change the view that we have had for a number of years. >> and i would include what other countries have done and the studies performed all across the world of? >> that is correct. >> i've heard some of my colleagues talk about the rules and what that might do. just so that we are are are queried for them to be 50 potentially thousands of cities, counties, neighborhood associations that has respect to those who might want to confirm the right to know.

i don't know that it would have an effect on the safety. >> they said they had to go to thousand miles. you might have to go 2,000 that had a different set of rules. but the impact that that would have on the consumers to understand what they were consuming would be pretty significant. >> i suppose it could be. my point is the underlying safety of the food wouldn't change. >> talk about the premarket consultation process today. you said that most of the folks are entering this into the commercial service that provided those that have gone through and a few have been withdrawn. i want to make sure no one has has went through the stop sign today where they said we have a question or a concerned and basic good for you we still want to introduce this in the marketplace.

>> no one has went through. >> it's not your expectation they would because it would be difficult for the product to have run through that says we think we've got a health or safety issue. >> that is our view, yes. >> you talked about how we are going to give you another one if i get this bill passed into law. >> this would require the fda within 24 months to propose a regulation with respect to ivory with my colleagues on both sides of the ila think we ought to clear that up so that the consumers have a good idea of what that really means. i understand the difficulty of the task and why you all have not come to fruition on that. but know that if we are successful at getting this bill passed you will get to be successful in your endeavor as well. >> said there have been proposals in the cities and states about labeling for genetically engineered products. have any of those folks come to you or the fda to ask for your

wisdom about about the people ought to look like or about the safety or the science behind genetically engineered food tax >> not that i am aware of. a >> to the best of your knowledge none of the states have come to you and said what does the fda think? 's back off that i am aware of and it is conceivable that if it comes into the agency but not that i'm aware of. >> and my asp question is this bill proposes that we would make the review process that the fda mandatory as opposed to voluntary assuming that we provided the resources such that they can handle all of the requests for the review. do you think that it is an improvement or that each of these products off to be submitted for the review before the commercialization plex debate could >> we think that is happening. >> that concludes question. i'm sure that people have follow-up questions. are there other questions from

members we will submit in writing and we ask that you please respond promptly. thank you very much for coming this morning. we are going to take -- while the staff set up the second panel a three minute recess. the subcommittee is in recess. lawmakers wrapped up last week and members returned on january 6 and the gavel as the 114th congress. the senate wrapped up its work late last night passing the bill to extend series of tax breaks

as well as improving a number of the executive and the judicial branch nominees. the majority leader said this week that approval of the keystone pipeline would be the first priority of the new republican-controlled senate. >> coming up live on c-span2 in about ten minutes or so will take you to the federal reserve for a press conference with the chair after a meeting about interest rates and u.s. monetary policy. the associated press is reporting the federal reserve has sharply cut its forecast for inflation next year saying that it will remain far below its 2% target through 2015 and they promise a patient approach to determine when to hike interest rates and again the chair will be a live a live starting at 2:30 on c-span2. >> also secretary of state john kerry is holding a news conference with the minister. we expect to hear the secretary also react to the news today that the u.s. will be easing restrictions on the cuban government following the release today of usaid subcontractor

from a cuban prison. his remarks coming up at 3 p.m. eastern you will be old to watch it live on c-span. >> then while we wait for janet to speak with reporters we will show you a discussion on union issues and education policiesrnl from this morning's washington t journal.t of >> host: i want to welcomerican back the president of the federation of teachers randi weingarten thank you for being here.ate let's begin with some last-minute business from the senate last night andpp that is approving the new surgeon young, general will be the youngest atn 37-years-old and his nomination being held up for a year. the what did this mean for the fight against the ebola? involved, >> guest: we are the n second-largest in the unitedur states so we have been very i involved in terms of being front line in america in the fight

against ebola and spending timen with people so when you don't have a surgeon general, you don't have the top policymakers prep the absence of that you don't have the preparation the united states needed to have when we started seeing that this oe -- i hospits thro remarkable how you see some hospitals throughout the country nurses the kind of preparation and even in the spending bill thehere. president's piece about theuse s preparation got in there because it is huge the training that is needed is huge because it is a matter of you have to do the screening.

the surgeon general is important on that. and what was said as the surgeon general has taken positions about the common sense gun safety and the fact that he's taking those positions shouldn't taken those positions should have disqualified him i'm glad that we overcame that and it's going to be a great addition. >> host: to fight for ebola now that it's not dominating the news anymore will this continue to be a priority and will the nurses get the training that they were calling for? >> guest: we were calling for a three-step plan one is that you need to have training for everyone and real equipment for everyone but you also need to have separate places where there are people stepping up that actually do the kind of care that needs to happen and what we have seen this in the places where hospitals work with our nurses that was happening in places where people pretended that they were all ready when they weren't it created a scare

and in some ways it reminds me of the beginning of the aids crisis. we need to take public health really seriously but it takes an investment and when you pull that investment out which is what has happened in terms of the disinvestment at nih and other places they are not ready so places where people are working together, nurses and hospitals which is part of what they help to do we are seeing the preparation. >> host: do you think that it stays on the path and doesn't get diverted? >> guest: that is part of the reason sometimes people think that we are annoying because that is our job to actually call that out because that is what we do in hospitals just like in schools when we say we need the investment just like we do in ie or education. i hear education. a quarter of the money that the states used to spend are gone.

that is part of why the issue about the student loan debt is so much worse today than it was five years ago so that's part of what our job is. to call that out and try to get that investment. >> host: we're talking with president of the american federation of teachers. phone lines are open. 20274801 for democrats to 027,488,000, and independent, (202)748-8002 and fourth line for educators. we want to hear from you (727)848-8003. another issue that congress dealt with before they left town was this $1.1 trillion spending bill. it included pension cuts. your union wasn't impacted but others were. what did it do and why are they not impacted?

>> as opposed to what is happening in the country which is just closing. so the building trades were very much pushing this bill because what they wanted is an ability, they wanted some tools to be able to collectively work together to fix some of the private sector pension plans that had been cut because a few things. from investment issues because of the recession and in some ways it is so ironic that the spending bill also allowed the change in dodd frank which was needed to stop another recession caused by wall street crash or gambles. so they actually pushed for this to get them some tools so that they could fix their plans so that they would be available.

it didn't affect public-sector pensions because those are done through state but let me just also say we have a retirement security crisis if you look at the median income that people are saving close to retirement it's about $3,000. so how are we going to make sure that people have retirement savings to rely on when they are in their 70s or their 80s and that's what they used to do for people. so what we need to do is figure out how to do more over the course of a lifetime and not when they are 60 or 70-years-old >> host: are the prospects of that when republicans are taking control in january tax >> guest: in terms of state funds a lot have come back because the reason they were cut and affected so much number one

in lubbock republican governors in particular take new jersey pension holidays instead of giving their donation when the employees are due they say we are just going to take a holiday but it's more and more healthy and if you look at this as a pension fund. >> host: are they healthy because wall street came back? >> guest: part of it is because people are doing the kind of contributions that they need to do over the course of time. they have put in their contributions in terms of the pensions. it was the government that sent we are not going to put ours in. >> host: if wall street does better, pensions to better.

>> you can't have winners and losers in this economy. you can't have an economy that has the greatest wealth gap. everybody should be doing well, not just the 1%. we can't have stagnation for everybody else but we know that pensions actually force investment in wall street which is why it is so ironic that some aspects of wall street actually fight against the very same thing that's eating it. >> host: jeb bush took one step closer to set up a fund raising committee in january. he's been very vocal on common core so what did you make of a potential bid by him? the >> is a very smart guy and if he becomes a republican candidate, it will be a very tough contested election but the

bottom line is look in terms of education. it's not what you say. it's what you do. we have to maintain the promise of the public education and if you look at what he did in florida he is a fantastic salesman but the focus was on testing and grading and he created a system which eventually all of the school boards in florida right now are saying stop we need to teach kids in terms of art, music and education and critical thinking, not just measure. and if we want to do that, we have to invest. it's about critical thinking. i agree with the promise of common core because we have to help kids get to that critical thinking stage but a lot of it is they are more focused on the

testing and bug reading and absorbing when public education is about helping all so you have to look at what he actually did about education and not what he says he did about education. >> host: who is against him? >> guest: it's still early and there is no secret that my union and i, we've always been very big hillary clinton fans. we worked very hard for her in 2008 she was my senator in new york state but you've got to just wait to see -- good afternoon. the market committee concluded its last meeting of the year earlier today and indicated in the policy statement they reaffirmed their view that the