is really, those that get addicted to opioids and overdose or go on to become addicted to heroin. we can stop this people from getting addicted in the first place, we can help treat those that are addicted, and reversing and overdose when it is happening. host: a lot of interest in this topic, so for our viewers, if you want to learn more, go to cdc.gov/addiction. that does it for the washington journal, the house is about to gavel in for their legislative session. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

and announces to the house hi s approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: mr. speaker pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor will please say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. ms. foxx: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: mr. speaker i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from michigan, mr. trott. mr. trott: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson, is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: i'm grateful to recognize a constituent, chaplain lieutenant colonel brian bowman, as our guest chaplain today. chaplain bowman, a native of bel-air maryland, now resides in south carolina. he is a dedicated member of the south carolina air national guard. after enlisting in the air force in 1992, he faithfully

served in the air force and the air force reserves before joining the south carolina air national guard. on active duty, he provided ministry at home and abroad, during operations noble eagle, operation freedom. he is an author of the oath of the military office and for god and country which discusses the call for military chaplaincy. in recognition of his service, chaplain bowman was awarded the samuel stone award as the air national guard chaplain of the year in 2013 a well-deserved honor. chaplain bowman is also the founder and director of operation thank you, a nonprofit dedicated to inspiring our service members and military families. as a 28-year veteran of the national guard and grateful parent of three members currently serving in the guard, i know firsthand of chaplain bowman's dedicated service. i'm grateful to welcome

chaplain brian bowman, his wife, shelly, his daughter, mary ellen, to the capitol today. in conclusion, god bless our troops and may the president, by his actions, not forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from south carolina has expired. the chair will entertain up to five further one-minute requests on each side of the aisle. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan for one minute. mr. trott: thank you, mr. speaker. this headline is dated july 21, 2025. it is what our children and grandchildren will read in the history books in 10 years. due to obama agreement, iran develops nuclear arsenal, rogue nation now threatening to strike united states, destroy israel and attack other allies.

in addition to creating a nuclear iran, this deal will also create an arms race. it will create a means through which to finance more terrorism. it will create more tension because we only have managed access inspections. what this deal will not change is iran's behavior. they will continue to hate us. they will continue to call for death to america. this deal is a big gamble, a gamble the united nations is apparently willing to take but one we in congress must reject. i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this deal. we can never allow this terrible headline to become a reality. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. esty: thank you, mr.

speaker. i rise today to congratulate praton whitney on their 90th anniversary. since 1925, praton whitney has been a cornerstone of connecticut and the nation's economy. in the last 90 years, the men and women from across the country and in my state have designed and produced the most technologically advance and dependable engines on the market. their f-135 engine powers lockheed martin's s-35 joint strike fighter and their new geared turbo fan engine is setting the standard for performance in commercial aviation. praton whitney's engineers, manufacturers, designers and technicians have fostered connecticut's innovation ecosystem for almost a century. we could not be more proud that they call connecticut home. congratulations, praton whitney, we look forward to another 90 years of aviation

leadership. thank you and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlewoman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> seek permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you mr. speaker. the house will soon consider legislation to address sanctuary cities, local policies that sit federal policies to help individuals who have broken a law, a policy that led recently to a terrible tragedy. mr. jolly: we should address this. i rise out of concern for the enforcement mechanism in the current draft of the legislation. the current draft would penalize sanctuary cities by reducing assistance to law enforcement. the very men and women we rely on each day to keep us safe. consider the irony to promote greater safety in law enforcement we are threatening to reduce assistance to law enforcement when it is commissions and councils that adopt policies regarding sanctuary cities. this is wrong. we can do better. i anticipate voting for passage

because we need to address this issue nationally, but i ask my colleagues today to work together. let's replace this shortsighted provision that wrongly hurts those who helps us every day on the front lines of law enforcement. men and women months ago we recognized during police week. let's ensure we can increase and continue to invest in local law enforcement. thank you, mr. speaker. i yiled -- yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1599, which would nullify states' rights to label genetically modified organism, commonly known as g.m.o.'s. the house will vote on this bill today. i share the concerns of many of my constituents in california's 13th congressional district about the proliferation of untested genetically modified

foods entering our food supply. and the risks to farmers public health created by the rushed commercialization of genetically engineered crops and genetically modified organism products. the american people deserve the best information possible when it comes to food choices they make for themselves and their families. already, some 60 foreign nations around the world require g.m.o. labeling. we need to be on the side of transparency and the safety of the people we represent. that's why i support legislation like representative peter defazio's gentlemen neatically engineered right to know act, h.r. 913, which would require the labeling of genetically engineered foods at the federal level. i hope my colleagues will defeat h.r. 15 9 and move forward with federal efforts of requiring adequate and clear labeling for the foods american families are eating. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? mr. guinta: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. guinta: mr. speaker, i rise today on behalf of the 1.25 million american children and adults with type 1 diabetes. as members of congress, we have the privilege of meeting with individuals from our home states advocating on various issues. all come from different back grounds and different experiences. however, they all have one thing in common. they come to washington looking to change our nation. last week i had the honor of meeting with 11-year-old sky archibald from new hampshire who was in washington as part of the juvenile diabetes research foundation congress. sky was digsed with type 1 diabetes since the young age of 9, raiseing money to -- raising money to help find a cure. in fact, her hard work and dedication has resulted in the sign of a bill by new hampshire's own governor.

it's because of bright and determined advocates like sky that washington can begin working better for new hampshire. and it's because of sky that i recently signed on to h.r. 1427, a bipartisan bill to help provide increased coverage of a vital tool that monitors sugar levels to help save the lives of those with diabetes. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i rise today to commemorate the life and legacy of a very inspirational grand prairie resident from the dal wort community, tommy williams. she worked next door in the arlington independent school district. she served as a first, third and seventh grade teacher, a basketball coach a cheerleading sponsor and vice president of curriculum at sam houston high

school. in addition, ms. williams she was the first african-american administrator and the first parent to serve as a community ombudsman in the arlington independent school district. in honor of her outstanding service and education, the tommie b. williams elementary school in arlington was dedicated in her honor in 1991. although we lost a great educator in the school district and many in the dal worth community lost a great -- dalworth community lost a great neighbor, the parents, faculty will always remember her passion and belief in a brighter future for our youngest members of society. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mrs. maloney: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute -- mr. lamalfa: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise in favor of enforce the law against

sanctuary cities act. why does it take tragedy after tragedy before this congress and america gets behind the idea that we don't have to have more tragedies like kate steinle in san francisco or one that almost maybe forgotten about, jemeil years ago, all at the hands of illegal immigrants who should not be here, should be deported? why do we keep doing this? again, sanctuary cities that don't enforce the law, they intentionally cause people to be in harm's way because they're not enforcing the law. denying funding them is one strong message to sanctuary cities. over 300 now in the united states that they're doing the wrong thing and needlessly endangering or losing the lives of kate steinle from illegal immigrants. i urge passage and ask the senate take it up as well. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> to speak on the floor for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. aguilar: thank you, mr. speaker. watching the news lately, it's nothing but donald trump and his baseless rhetoric. he's attacked a war hero but first attacked an entire country of people. donald trump is trying to get into the white house but it looks like he's already infiltrated congress. this bill on the floor of this house today has donald trump written all over it. this donald trump bill treats people like criminals who haven't even been arrested yet. congress doesn't need to tell our local police and this was how to keep us safe. decades of research shows that this kind of bill will only make our neighborhoods less safe. the safety of our families should not be upon to please donald trump. republicans should work to fix our broken immigration system that will make our neighborhoods safer and supercharge our economy. i stand with the major county sheriff's association and the fraternal order of police and oppose this bill.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. . ms. foxx: last week the house passed legislation that would fund the highway and transit programs through december 18. transportation infrastructure, key components of economic development efforts in north carolina and this fiscally responsible bill keeps important road and bridge projects going in the short-term while discussions continue on a longer term bill. earlier this year i introduced legislation to help the federal government responsibly manage taxpayer money and stretch the limited funds available to the highway trust fund by exempting it from the davis-bacon act's outdated wasteful labor requirements for federal-aid highway and public transportation projects. the davis-bacon act was passed in 1931 and requires federal contractors and subcontractors

to pay the local prevailing wage for construction projects on which the federal government is a party. for decades it has been driving up the cost of federal highway projects by mandating artificially high wages. it is time to get america back on track by spending wisely not carelessly. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, on august 6, just a few days from now, america will have the privilege of celebrating the 50th anniversary of the 1965 voting rights act but the sadness to know that the voting rights act has been gutted by the united states supreme court. with instructions for this congress to respond to the rights of americans to vote. i'm very proud of the words of justice ginsberg said, commence that if -- common sense if polio

is on the demise, why get rid of the polio vaccination. voting prohibitionses and prohibiting people from voting has decreased over the decades, but it has because of the voting rights act. frankly we are doing a great disservice. when there are rebel flags being flown to show racial divide or monuments that represent very dire comments about those who are slaves, it looks as if this congress could bring a voting rights legislation to be voted on for all americans to be able to vote. what a sad state of affairs when we cannot have a real vote on the floor of the house to re-authorize the voting rights act which many of us have worked on even from the last congress. i finally conclude by saying on this floor will be a bill dealing with what we call sanctuary cities take advantage of an enormous tragedy which i offer my deepest sympathy. the national league of cities,

the fra turnal order of police, and sheriff's association are saying that the bill dealing with sanctuary cities is misguided, it penalizes law enforcement, and it doesn't allow the common sense that should have beenish shied in san francisco, pick up the phone and communicate. i think we should do the right kind of law in this body not laws that will undermine the very principles of democracy, equality, and justice. thank you, mr. speaker. pass a voting rights act now. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlewoman has expired. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker house of representatives. sir, pursuant to the permission granted in class 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of u.s. house of representatives the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on july 23, 2015, at 9:32 a.m. that the senate passed senate

1599. signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 370 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 50 house resolution 370 resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 3009, to amend section 241-i of the immigration and nationality act to deny assistance under such section to a state or political subdivision of a state that prohibits its officials from taking certain actions with respect to immigration. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. and two one motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one hour. >> mr. speaker for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from colorado pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. collins: during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. for such time he may consume. mr. collins: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. and include extraneous material on the bill currently under consideration. i am pleased to bring this rule forward on behalf the rules committee. it provides for consideration of h.r. 3009, the enforce the law for sanctuary cities act of the the rules committee met yesterday evening and heard testimony from both the chairman and judiciary committee, the ranking member of the subcommittee on immigration in

addition to several members interested in this issue. this rule brought forward by the committee is a closed rule and provides for one hour of general debate equally divide and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the judiciary committee. we are bringing this rule forward today because both the safety of american people and the integrity of our system of laws depends on its passage. no institution, body, or agency has the right to selectively apply the law or selectively enforce the law. the same individuals who claim exemption from our immigration laws demand equality under our criminal laws. do we really want to live in a country where an agency claims the authority to pass political judgment on you and your circumstance to determine if the law applies to you? this is precisely what the administration is proposing. not only are their actions contrary to public safety, they are fundamentally undermined the most basic concept of law. i believe the sanctuary cities are unacceptable. that's why i was a part of the effort to prohibit them in georgia and why i'm so committed to continuing this fight here in congress. the trangic and preventable

death -- tragic and spreeptable death of kate steinle in san francisco at the hands of an illegal immigrant is the latest example of why we have to address sanctuary cities and enforce the law. here me, mr. speaker, kate is not the only vick tifment according to the u.s. sentencing commission 74 9121 federal crimes in 2014, 27,505 or 36% were committed by those here illegally. during an eight-month period in 2014, sanctuary cities released more than 8,000 criminal illegal immigrant offenders, the u.s. immigration and customs enforcement were seeking to deport. according to a report released by the center of immigration studies of these 8,000 released, approximately 1,900 were arrested for successive crimes during the eight-month time frame. i believe san francisco and other cities are soaked in blood now. they choose to protect criminal illegal aliens over an innocent american woman.

beyond the public safety threat posed by sanctuary cities, the federal government has the responsibility to be good stewards of tax dollars entrusted them by hardworking americans. there is no reasonable explanation in law or policy why the federal government should send money to cities in the form of grants or reimbursement to enforce the law when they are ignoring the law. it is a waste of taxpayer money to send this money to states for purposes of law enforcement where they clearly aren't using it for that purpose. the situation before us today is one of dangerous political hypocrisy. the administration vocally stated administration law lies with the federal government anti-federal government alone. their entire case against arizona was premised on that point. that was when states were trying to enforce the law. but when states don't enforce the law, essentially playing to the administration's failure to enforce. the administration claims there is nothing they can do. sort of an interesting proposition. last week i questioned secretary of homeland security about the issues of sanctuary cities. the secretary stated there was

nothing that d.h.s. could do and that he didn't feel it was productive to try and force the cities to cooperate. the administration jumps all over states that help enforce immigration laws, including suing arizona for enacting laws to protect its borders and sit zpwrensens. i ask where is the outrage by the administration over san francisco's failure to follow the law? where's the lawsuit? it's not surprising that the administration is only outbraged when states are acting in a manner that doesn't meet their political goals. d.h.s. refuses to make sanctuary cities comply with the law while at the same time d.o.j. is now requiring law enforcement in maricopa county arizona, to provide services in spanish to jail inmates. this kind of political hypocrisy is the kind that has already cost the life of kate steinle. the administration want as nonenforcement policy, it is up to congress to make the administration follow the law. that is why the rules committee is bringing forward this rule and h.r. 3009.

sanctuary cities ignore and shield illegal immigrants at the expense of law-abidinging -- law-abiding americans. and the failure to enforce this law is complicit. listen, mr. speaker i believe that sanctuary cities should be descriptions of cities that provide safe and secure places for law-abiding sitens not the definition for cities choosing to provide safety for those flaunting our immigration laws. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: i thank the gentleman from georgia for yielding me 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time he may consume. mr. polis: i rise in opposition to the rule and underlying bill. the rule today provides for h.r. 3009 a bill that i strongly oppose. wouldn't even solve the problem that it attempts to here today. first a little bit about the

process. this is a closed process. that reflects the practice of shutting down debate on the house floorment we should be talking about how to protect americans like katherine steinle. instead, we are limited to debating a bill even if it had been the law would not have affected this case or others like it or secured our bourdr borders. we are not even allowed to introduce amendments that would secure our borders here before the house floor. we have not had a single hearing on this bill. and it has not been marked up in committee. it simply appeared before the judiciary committee. it appeared before the rules committee yesterday. fully formed. and we talked for several hours about many of its flaws there. but unfortunately nevertheless it has been advanced under the rules of the house floor. this bill is not a fix. it's not a solution to anything. it's a heavy-handed way to attack communities that are simply trying to find solutions to what is fundamentally a federal problem.

yes mr. speaker, dress it up however you like it's our fault. the institution of congress' fault, the federal government's fault that we have failed to secure our borders. it is the federal government's fault that there are 10 12, 14 million people in our country illegally, some of them felon immigrants. that is not the fault of any city or county or state. and our law enforcement professionals, sheriffs, police chiefs are doing the best they can with the facts on the ground which work against them because of this body's failure to act. this bill before us is simply an attempt to provide a false solution to a tragic incident. thiser, in spite of the fact that this body has refused to bring forward a single bill to fix our broken immigration system or secure our border. the murder of katherine steinle was a terrible tragedy. it should not have occurred and

there were so many breakages along the way and things that could have been done to prevent it. but this action is primarily a way to highlight our broken immigration system. it's a disgrace that our immigration enforcement agencies dedicate signature resources to -- significant resources to pursue people with no criminal history while those with serious felonies is limited to something like a phone call. or an email from the sheriff in san francisco. i.c.e. the agency with sole authority to deport people within our borders, an agency with a budget of more than $5 billion annually, is to blame here for its perverse allocation of resources. i.c.e. should have pursued this individual vigorously. i.c.e. is responsible for the fact this man was walking the streets of san francisco instead of mexico. but rather than take

responsibility for this tragedy and commit to making the necessary changes to prevent anything like it from happening in the future like, for instance, encapsule lating the president's daca and dapa programs in statute so that our limited enforcement resources can be focused on criminal felons rather than tens of thousands of individuals with no criminal history, instead of doing that this body is threatening local law enforcement with reducing their funds to keep communities safe. . this bill would do less to address the issue in a meaningful way. this legislation undermines local law enforcement, tramples the 10th amendment of our constitution and directly undermines the authority and judgment exercised by local law enforcement agencies that are simply trying to do their job as best they can in light of a federal failure, a federal

failure to deport felon immigrants a federal failure to secure our borders a federal failure to establish enforcement priorities in statute. these decisions behind policing communities and ensuring public safety are made by those in those jurisdictions. we shouldn't have reactionary politicians in washington threatening to cut off funding to this was and police chiefs to make their communities less safe and lead to more victims, felons both immigrant and american. that's why this bill is opposed by the conference of mayors law enforcement, immigration task force fraternal order of police and many other law enforcement professionals. article 1, section 8 of the constitution, which we began this session of congress reading, makes clear that it's the federal government's responsibility to create and

enforcement immigration -- enforce immigration policies. it will always come back here. because only the federal government can secure our borders, only the federal government can establish enforcement priorities in statute, only the federal government can provide a pathway to citizenship, only the federal government deports felon immigrants. despite this, however, congress has displayed and complete and total unwillingness to even begin the debate on fixing our broken immigration system. instead choosing to threaten local law enforcement for our own failures in this town washington, d.c. i as best they can in light of

a federal failure, a federal failure to deport felon immigrants, a federal failure to secure our borders, a federal failure to establish enforcement priorities in statute. these decisions behind policing communities and ensuring public safety are made by those in those jurisdictions. we shouldn't have reactionary politicians in washington threatening to cut off funding to this was and police chiefs to make their communities less safe and lead to more victims, felons both immigrant and american. that's why this bill is opposed by the conference of mayors, law enforcement, immigration task force, fraternal order of police and many other law enforcement professionals. article 1, section 8 of the constitution, which we began this session of congress reading, makes clear that it's the federal government to's responsibility to create and enforcement immigration -- enforce immigration policies. it will always come back here. because only the federal government can secure our borders, only the federal government can establish enforcement priorities in statute, only the federal government can provide a pathway to citizenship, only the federal government deports felon immigrants. despite this, however, congress has displayed and complete and total unwillingness to even begin the debate on fixing our broken immigration system. instead choosing to threaten local law enforcement for our own failures in this town, washington, d.c. i tried to reinitiate this debate yesterday in the rules committee by introducing an amendment to this bill my measure was voted down and failure of maintaining the status quo. so instead of having a meaningful debate on how to make our immigration system work in our favor and keep americans safe by keeping immigrant felons off the street and securing our border, the republicans are instead insisting to push this bill through the house, threatening local law enforcement without hearing, committee debate or even the opportunity to amend it with good ideas from democrats or republicans. felons and egregious immigration violators like mr. lopez sanchez should not be able to walk freely in the streets of this country. instead we get serious of enforcing our borders and creating laws with the resources to enforce them, people like lopez sanchez will continue to walk free and harm americans. this legislation will

effectively require local enforcement of immigration laws effectively trying to foist off our responsibilities on beleaguered law enforcement agencies with their limited resources are making the best judgments they can to keep their communities safe. federal courts have found that the d.h.s. detainer policies violate the constitution because i.c.e. detainer requests that people be held in local custody two days beyond the time they otherwise would be released, federal courts have said that i.c.e. detainers is unconstitutional. i.c.e. has issued detainers based on investigative interest alone and these dragnet detainer issuance have caused the detention of countless people who were not criminal felons felon aliens who are not removable. even u.s. citizens in some cases. the federal courts finally caught up with this practice and found them to be

unconstitutional and holding local agencies under civil liabilities for honoring dekainers from i.c.e. in my county the arapaho county police was forced to pay a fine. a woman was held in an arapaho county jail at the request for immigration agency. another case in jefferson county, sheriff's office was forced to settle for $40000. now, detainers are a form of communication and are therefore in a reasonable reading of this proposed law are included. so effectively you are presenting impossible choices to local law enforcement. you are telling them on the one hand subject yourself to civil ity or subject yourself to cutting off a federal grant to support your efforts. either way it's a loss for the safety of american citizens and a loss for law enforcement all

because this body fails to own up to the fact that only we can fix the problem. only we can secure the border. only we can replace our immigration system with a comprehensive approach that makes sense and has the resources to enforce it, the federal resources to enforce it. this isn't some theoretical matter that some intellectually curious law review cooked up. jurisdictions in my district have been found civilly liable from forcing detainers and being forced to pay. lawsuits are being filed. local law enforcement agencies that serve as proxies for i.c.e. are losing. so if you want to tell cities in my state to enforce unconstitutional policies, why not take on the federal -- the liability federally? will this body pay the settlement from the jefferson county sheriff's office, the settlement of $37,000 from the arapaho county sheriff's office? the republicans are making it clear that they don't have a

plan to keep people like kathryn steinle safe. they don't have a plan to secure our borders. they don't have a plan to address our broken immigration system, and this bill today is just another piece of evidence of this body, this institution's failure to keep americans safe. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. clinseclinse thank you mr. speaker. -- mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to hit a couple points here. it was stated by my friend from colorado about the issue of san francisco and pursuing individuals such as this one who committed murder and the fact is i.c.e. did ask for him to be held. san francisco made the choice to let him go, which is leading us to the issue today before us, and we want to continue -- and also just this one, you know, assertion that this is a false solution debate is when is it a false solution to

actually have to be here and discuss actually enforcing the law? and i think that's exactly what we're doing here and if you choose to enforce the law, that is what your proper role should be. if not, these are the penalties that should be put in place. i think it will continue this process. for now i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i'd like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, my distinguished colleague on the lurke rules committee, mr. mc-- colleague on the rules committee, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. mcgovern: i rise in opposition to this closed rule. this process is an absolute outrage. i also rise in strong opposition to h.r. 3009. mr. speaker, along with all of my colleagues and every american, my heart goes out to the family of kathryn steinle. the murder of every innocent person is a tragedy, and after each such heinous crime we always ask ourselves, could this have been avoided? could we have done something

differently? h.r. 3009 paints itself as a remedy to kathryn steinle's death, but it does nothing, absolutely nothing to address how to improve communication between our law enforcement immigration prosecutors, penal institutions nor does it help the protocols of how decisions are made on the transfer or release of a person who i.c.e. has a detainer request. instead, h.r. 3009 chooses to strip local law enforcement agencies of their federal grants and funding when they prioritize working with immigrant communities in order to keep neighborhoods cities and towns safe. republicans would rather demonize these cities and local law enforcement agencies and force them to squander scarce local resources on immigration enforcement instead of local policing. in effect, h.r. 3009 will make our cities and communities less safe rather than more secure.

this is why law enforcement and city governments oppose this bill. it deliberately and cynically undermines their ability to protect their communities, nurture public trust in the police and our legal system and strengthen our public safety. h.r. 3009 is opposed by the major county this was association, the fraternal order of -- sheriffs association, the fraternal order of police, the major chiefs association, and the national conference of mayors and the national league of cities. all of them strongly oppose this bill. mr. speaker, this bill weeks of prejudice. it isn't meant to solve any problem. it's meant to punish cities that don't embrace of views of anti-immigrants. it is meant to hurt any sheriff, any cop on the beat who challenges the republican

anti-immigrant orthodoxy of hate them all and deport them all. deport the dreamers. deport the parents of u.s. citizens. deport the children fleeing violence. deport, deport, deport. mr. speaker, this house continues to wait and wait for the republican majority to show some leadership and bring up a comprehensive immigration reform bill. it's been more than two years since the senate passed a strong bipartisan immigration reform bill, and we're still waiting for the house republicans to act. what we need is a way to bring 11 million of our neighbors, friends and colleagues, small business owners and hardworking residents out of the shadows. let them register, be documented and not fear talking with the police. and let us recognize their achievements and contributions to the american way of life. this bill had no hearings, no markup no input from local law enforcement, no regular order. in fact, in the topsy-turvy world of the republican house,

the judiciary committee's immigration subcommittee is holding its first hearing on this topic today, this morning, when this bill is already here on the house floor for debate and votes later today. no mr. speaker. this bill is just more of the same old divisive republican anti-immigration formula. america is better than this and i urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule and oppose the underlying bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: mr. speaker, i rise in -- part of this is really -- and even if you looked at the administration's view on this bill and others, it's almost as it's an alice in wonderland effect. what's up is down and what's down is up. it's hurting the law. now, there are issues that need to be addressed and one of the issues was is we have a communication problem. i agree. we got a communication problem.

when they say hold him, he's going to be deported he is deportable, he is not someone we want on our streets and san francisco and other sanctuary cities choose to release them, that's a communication problem. i'll agree with my friends across the aisle on that point. but to say that punishing views , how about enforcing the law? the last time i sat in my law classes, we didn't enforce views, we enforce laws. and i think that's what we're bringing up here. and i can't let it pass. i talked about this before. as a member who believes that there are immigration issues that we need to address and as a member of the judiciary committee, which, by the way, has held hearings dealing with this subject. in fact just last week the secretary of d.h.s. was in. i questioned him directly about this. it's amazing he has no real opinion about sanctuary cities as he told me in his testimony. i find that rather amazing in that. he would say that there will be

a problem not enforcing these laws but -- when asked about other laws we want to enforce, is it ok for cities to turn their backs on those laws, there's not an opinion. we talked about this. we had immigration hearings and we have begun the process of marking up legislation to secure our communities, to secure our borders and to do those things. but before we start throwing the nature of saying there's all wrong with the republican majority on something we have not done, i just want to go back and remind you, i'm still one who at the time was out there watching the proceedings from my home in the state of georgia where we were doing everything we could to balance the needs of our state and our economy during a shutdown and during a depression, recession, whatever you want to call it and we were trying to balance budgets and we were watching this issue up here. but what i saw was is we're told today, we're waiting for republicans and republicans have all this bad agenda but at the same point, when this body was controlled by my friends across the aisle, when the other body across the way, the senate, was controlled by my

friends across the aisle and when the administration was new and in their early stages of developing their strategy for solving all of the world's problems, what they chose to do was wreck health care, to work against community bankers to work against those who were trying -- they chose that. they chose not to do comprehensive immigration reform. they chose to use it as a political issue and a political pawn. they chose not to bring this up and i will not yield at this point in time. when you want to bring it up, let's shine the light brightly. let's bring it up and shine the light brightly on both sides because the world was waiting. you managed to get a lot of other things through. you managed to do other things that you want to do but you chose not to do this. you chose not to make this. my question is is simply here, it's a bill that's being brought forward that says enforce the law. and with that i reserve the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves the baffle his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: when the democrats controlled last session they did pass comprehensive immigration reform with strong republican and democratic support, more than 2/3 of the body supported securing our borders, expelling felon immigrants, and keeping americans safe. had this body simply acted on that bill as we repeatedly tried to get them to do, we quite likely would not be facing this tragedy we face here today. and until this body acts there are likely to be more victims, more american victims of criminal immigrants. it is not the fault of the democrats. we worked with republicans in

the senate put together a bill. would have addressed it. it is the fault of this body the house of representatives, that failed to act. i'd like to -- without objection, i'd like to submit to the record a statement of administration policy with regard to this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. polis: which includes that the president, senior advisor would recommend he veto this bill. he then goes into some of the same arguments we have been talking about with regard to why we need to secure our border and grow our economy and make sure that we can fix our broken immigration system. with that i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. doggett: mr. speaker, the donald trump wing of the republican party is clearly ascendant here today. it's the dominant thinking among house republicans. this is the same proud that just back in february threatened the funding for homeland security because they were so eager to

deport our dreamers, young people who came here as children, who cleared a criminal background check, who paid a fee, and are already contribute being to america -- contributing to america, because whenever they are in doubt on immigration they fade to the extreme right. these are the same members of congress who have even gone to court to sue the president of the united states when he prioritized the deportation of criminals over immigrant families. and these are the same republicans who were so fearful of a same discussion here in this congress, this house is never a sang two wirery of -- sanctuary of sanity when it comes to immigration. but they refuse to bring to the floor of the house a bipartisan bill unanimously approved in the homeland security committee to deal with border security. if that wasn't bad enough, they came back this year with a

totally partisan border security bill and they have been afraid to bring it to the floor because they do not want a reasoned discussion of immigration in this house of representatives. unfortunately, this congress is also never a sanctuary from partisan political stunts designed to capitalize on the latest tragedy like the tragedy that occurred in san francisco. this bill is not about grabbing criminals. it's about grabbing headlines. it's not about a thoughtful debate of the best immigration and law enforcement policies for our country, it's about scoring political points. it does so by rejecting the expert opinion of sheriffs and police chiefs and law enforcement experts and organizations and local mayors and leaders in the municipal level across america who say that to fight crime effectively they need to win the trust of

all of the communities that they serve. this bill is opposed by major law enforcement organizations. by munenies pal government organizations. and -- municipal government organizations. and i saw at the top of the list of those law enforcement organization, the police chief of my hometown who works with community policing to make our communities safe. some localities believe that they can better enforce the law, better keep our communities safe if an undocumented person who is a witness or victim of crime is involved with them and reporting those crimes and helping enforce the law. if i have to choose between donald trump and his extreme attitudes embodied by colleagues here in this house today, my local law enforcement about how to protect my family, all of our families, i choose law enforcement. let's reject this bad bill. the speaker pro tempore: the time -- mr. polis: i yield an additional

15 seconds. mr. doggett: if they are so committed to supporting local law enforcement, eliminating funding for the cops program is hardly the way to do t we ought to be putting our dollars and our support and our immigration laws in conformity with the law enforcement exports -- experts across america and protect our families. reject this bad bill and then do something substantive to back our law enforcement officials. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from texas has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. it is -- i appreciate the arguments. this is why we have this time. but i do want to just remind again from my previous statement bringing up a bill last congress reminds me back when i used to coach kids in football. and there was always that struggle you wanted to put as many kids in. you want everybody to play. you still wanted to win the game. there was that balance you always had. it reminds me one time it happened to be one of my own kids.

now, that's pretty hard when you're coaching one of your own kids you get to the end of the game and you didn't put him in like you thought you were going to because the time ran out on the game. you go to him, fortunately he was my son. i was driving home. i'm sorry. i called his name, i said i'm sorry i didn't get you into the game. time run out. but i had every intention of getting you in the game. that's about like saying last congress when the senate was democrat but the house is republican and we have different ideas and different views we are bringing forward i simply go back to the time when that did not exist. when time was still on the clock they chose not to do anything. also it's a good distractor from what we are talking about today. cities enforcing laws. finding solutions and doing so. that's simply what this bill does. that's what this rule provides for and that's the thing that needs to be talked about. this is the discussion that needs to be had. this is the discussion the american people are having all over. including, by the way, san

francisco, who is re-evaluating their policy even now. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. ms. edwards: thank you very much mr. speaker. and thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today to ask my house colleagues to stop and think for a moment and to oppose not only the rule but the underlying bill. it is extreme. it is anti-immigrant. and it's really not about sanctuary cities. in fact this flawed legislation actually second-guesses the decisions made by local police chiefs and sheriffs around the country on how best to police their communities and ensure public safety. and ensure the kind of cooperation that they need in order for law enforcement to work properly. as the founder and former executive director of the national network to end domestic violence representing domestic

violence organizations and coalitions around the country, i'm deeply concerned that this legislation will have a negative effect on the cooperation that is necessary between law enforcement and isolated, very isolated victims of domestic and sexual violence. and furthermore, it would strip the bipartisan provisions that pass in the violence against women act when we just re-authorized t specifically, h.r. 3009 negatively amends section 241-i of the immigration and nationality act by doing the following. undermining the spirit and protections of vawa and effectively pushing immigrant survivors and their children, many of whom are likely u.s. citizens, deeper and deeper into the shadows of danger. it undermines the policies that local communities have determined are appropriate for their localities to ensure that victims of crime come forward without fear of tretry bution. it a -- retribution.

it allows violent crimes to go uninvestigated. and leaves victims without redress because of reductions in funding. this bill would have damaging ramifications for families across the nation and in my home state of maryland. i have here and ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence against women, representing coalitions organizations, shelters, and services, and programs in every single state in this country. and i'd ask unanimous consent to enter their letter into record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to quote from this letter. it says fear of deportation also strengthens the ability of abusers and traffickers to find and trap their victims. not only are the individual victims harmed, but their fear of law enforcement leaves many to sustain from reporting violent perpetrators or coming forward. as a result, dangerous criminals are not identified and go unpunished. surely, mr. speaker, this is not

what we need to do. we need to ensure the continued protections of domestic violence victims across this country no matter who they are and no matter where they are. to know that law enforcement o will be there to protect them and their children. and with that mr. speaker, i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maryland yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia continues to reserve. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time he may consume. mr. polis: the best way to address the problems in our immigration system, the best way to address the lack of security for american citizens, the best way to ensure that there are not others like katherine steinle and others who have fallen victim to illegal felons it's to fix our broken immigration system securitier secure our borders.

only congress can do that. the president has taken the first steps to he help keep americans safe by suggesting certain policies like daca and dapa programs. now daca is being implemented. dapa is unfortunately, tied up in the courts. these efforts allow our law enforcement agencies to do is to focus their efforts on criminals like mr. lopez sanchez rather than violators of our civil law. now, it would be better if this body can put those concepts into statute or better yet make sure that we can differentiate between noncriminals and criminals within the law. immigration reform bill would reduce the risk of tragedies like this and help keep americans safe by helping law enforcement identify people who are here illegally. and it would bring people out of the shadows. identifying the portion of our

people that are here illegal that qualify for relief and for prosecutorial discretion would help our law enforcement agencies narrow their focus and targets to individuals like mr. lopez sanchez. immigration reform efforts like h.r. 15 which is the comprehensive bill from last congress would modernize our immigration agencies increase enforcement, and resources tools, technology and border security to prevent tragedies like this from occurring. but doing the difficult work of having a meaningful debate around immigration reform is the only way we can ever be able to keep americans safer and reduce the likelihood of this kind of incident. a vote for this particular bill won't do anything to address these systemic problems. had this been the law it would not have prevented this tragedy, nor does it do anything to address the problems plaguing

our immigrationcies tefment instead it threatens and bullies local law enforcement and says to them either expose yourself to civil liability which is very real. my agencies in colorado have been forced to pay, they have been forced to pay $30,000, $40,000. pay legal fines or we are going to cut your grants. look, it's a natural tendency of people to pass the buck. congress is basically trying to pass the buck to local law enforcement for our failures here in this body. mr. lopez sanchez should not have been wandering the streets of san francisco or any other american city. he should not have been allowed to illegally enter. in fact, he had been caught at the border four or five times. and he had snuck across other times. we need real border security and we need to finally enforce our law and get serious about restoring the rule of law which

this bill would only make an even bigger joke. rather than restoring the rule of law and encouraging cooperation between federal state, and local authorities in case that is involve immigrant felons this bill would punish local law enforcement for prioritizing public safety and community policing over trying to do the job that congress and the federal government are supposed to do. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. coalins: i request, we have no other speakers at this point and wonder if the gentleman from colorado is ready to close. mr. polis: we will be shortly. mr. collins: i reserve. mr. polis: i inquire how much time remains. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado has 3 3/4 minutes. . mr. polis: i will close and i yield myself the balance of the

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: it's time. it's time for this body to fix our broken immigration system to keep americans safe. how many other victims like kathryn steinle will need to make the sacrifice or the countless other americans that are victims of other violent crimes at the hands of immigrant felons? until this chooses to fix our broken immigration system and restore the rule of law. this particular bill would only further dissipate the rule of law. it tells local law enforcement, you either have to pay fines that drain your ability to enforce our laws or you lose grants. either way, if this bill were

somehow to become law, even though the president and indicated he will veto it if this bill were to become law, either way it would drain away the very local law enforcement resources whose purpose it is to keep americans safe. let us move forward to replace our broken immigration system with one that works, not try to pass the buck. mr. speaker, the buck can't be passed. it is the federal government's responsibility to secure our border and establish immigration laws. it is the federal government's responsibility to deport criminals. no matter how this body may try to say that it should be cities and counties and sheriffs and police chiefs that are trying to do the dirty work that results from our failure to take action, they need to make the decisions that are in the

best interest of keeping their community safe and with 10 or -- 10 million or 12 million or 14 million in our country illegally some of them illy aliens, we're passing the buck to our local law enforcement with an impossible task. and rather than make that task more impossible by forcing them to pay civil fines or lose resources, let's help them have the resources and policies they need to deport felon immigrants before they commit crimes like the tragedy that occurred in san francisco. i urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, to oppose this bill and reject this bizarre approach that we are seeking here today which would have done nothing to prevent this tragedy or any other like it

and would lead to countless more tragedies by taking resources out of the hands of those who are on the front line on our streets, in our neighborhoods keeping americans safe, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia has 19 1/2 minutes remaining. he will be recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. collins: thank you mr. speaker. look, this is an interesting argument, as i stated before, because it really defies in many ways logic. the best way to help prevent what has just happened is to enforce the law. it's not to give a substantive wishy-washy, well, i want to enforce this, i don't want to enforce this, i'm making a political judgment. really, that's what the law should be for. this is the law he has been passed through political process, but this is the law for everyone -- this is the law that has been passed through political process but this is the law for everyone. i don't disagree with my friend from colorado. this is the part we are

supposed to debate. but once it leaves here, once it leaves and it's printed and it's law and it is signed, it is to be enforced. to really argue on this side, we don't want to enforce on this side, where does it end? we don't want to enforce drug laws, trafficking laws employment law? where does it end? i'm sure there are political differences in many cities, possibly in my own district of the ninth district of georgia where cities say, i'm not sure i like this employment law, i'm not sure i like dealing with compliance with federal mandates or federal law. you know what, we'll just ignore it. no. it's about enforcement. lopez sanchez was requested by i.c.e. you talk about limited resources, a lot of resources, it doesn't matter. they requested him to be held. san francisco said no. it's san francisco's choice, their political choice, their

life choice. it was a life choice for this young lady. her life is gone. it's not an economic choice. it's a life choice. and their choice led to a life being taken. it's not about whether you like the law or not. it's not whether you have a view on the law or not. it's a matter of whether you want to enforce the law or not. i'm not -- i struggle with this. and i understand the interest of immigrant communities. i understand about good policing. my father was a state trooper. i understand the relationship between the community and all to provide a safer community. but sanctuary cities are sanctuaries for those who are here illegally. who want to get up and go to work and not worry about getting shot on the street from someone here being sanctuaried. not once but multiple times. this is not a judgment call. san francisco could see this. they could see his record. they could see he was detained

for illegal entry. this is something that wasn't frankly close. they chose. you know, the question remains is, do we enforce or do we not? the question remains, do we want to be under a rule of law or do we want to have something else? and it's been brought up many times today of a bill in the last congress, it was passed by the senate that would be the panacea for everything and probably would help this and that was the implication given. but i have just one question to those who make that assertion. if san francisco and other sanctuary cities won't enforce the law now because of their political views, what gives them any idea they would enforce a new law? we got a fundamental problem here, mr. speaker. and the fundamental problem is is political rule of law going to happen or is thle of law going to happen? pass any bill you want, but if

we allow them to ignore it without consequence, then you have no standard. you have no basis for debate. you have no place to move forward. and you can pass everything you want to and have the president sign it in beautiful ceremonies, but if we allow political subdivision in this country just continue to pick and choose then we've got a problem. if there's issues, let's solve them here, let's have the debate. i agree. but this isn't up for debate when it leaves here. so pass whatever you want to pass. would san francisco enforce it? i don't know. maybe. maybe not. but when they released and other sanctuary cities released these and say we're not going to hold, we're not going to do these things, then they've made a choice and unfortunately in this case they made a life choice. and that beautiful life is

gone. this rule simply says enforce the law. this rule says this bill we have law. it's what we got right now. it's not your aspirational goal. it's the law. simply enforce it. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time and move the previous time on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: all time having expired on this resolution without objection, the question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. polis: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado has requested the yeas and nays. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill h.r. 1599, and would like to include the committee of commerce letters with the committee on agriculture.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 369 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1599. the chair appoints the gentleman from idaho, mr. simpson, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the

consideration of h.r. 1599 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to amend the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act with respect to food produced from, containing, or consisting of a bioengineered organism, the labeling of natural foods, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo and the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pompeo: 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, we've been working on this legislation and have solicited input from members, relevant agencies like the f.d.a. and the usda, we've met with the organic community, conventional farmers, 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 the scientific consensus on the safety of genetically engineered products is 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 government warning label because the producer chose a different breeding technology. that's unscientific and that's bad public policy. 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 populous on the rest of us and make the constituents that i serve in kansas pay more for their food.

a recent study shows that the proposed state labeling laws could raise the average family's cost of their food bill by roughly $500 per year. many many families in kansas simply cannot afford that. anti-biotechnology interest groups are attempting to use state laws to force mandatory g.e. labeling on safe products and interfere with interstate commerce. to ensure that the families in kansas and all across the country have access to nutritious and affordable bill, h.r. 1599 accomplishes three primary objectives. first, we ensure that every new g.e. plant destined to enter the food supply goes in for f.d.a. review. second, we present what would be the creation of an unworkable patchwork state-by-state or even county-by-county or city-by-city mandatory g.e. labeling laws. and finally, in order to provide clarity to those who prefer not to eat g.e. products, our bill authorizes a

voluntary user fee-based nong.e. labeling at the usda to provide even greater transparency. and more options so that consumers, by ensuring a common definition for non-g.m.o. for all foods whether it's served at the retail level or in restaurants. create a patchwork state-by-state set of rules will have real effects on our families and our districts. those who support mandatory g.e. products must admit their willing the cost of food in dallas, grand rapids, in vermont all across our nation based on unskiving demands based on activists. congress' goal must ensure that they have access to safe, nutritious and affordable food to feed their families. a patchwork of laws will not accomplish that. . it is simply not debatable. u.s. policy 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. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i want to address this issue that mr. pompeo and this bill presents to this house. this question of g.m.o. labeling and biotechnology is a good thing. biotechnology has done a lot of good things for this country and for consumers. this is not a question about whether the science says that g.m.o. foods cause medical issues. that's not the issue. the question is whether consumers when they purchase food have a right to know what's in it. and what mr. pompeo is suggesting, this legislation is suggesting is that regardless of what consumers want, they won't

be told. this bill does two fundamental things. one, it says to those states this is not about a group of small -- small group of activists this is states like vermont, like maine, and like connecticut with massive bipartisan votes, republicans and democrats, saying that they wanted the right to have these products labeled. and then the consumer can decide whether he or she wants to purchase that product. so it's the market that ultimately decides. this legislation would basically block all state laws that require mandatory g.m.o. labeling. so if the state of idaho with its republicans and democrats in the legislature responding to the demands of its constituents wanted to label t. you wouldn't be able to do -- label it. you wouldn't be able to do t it blocks the f.d.a. from creating a national labeling standard. that's the irony here. if you're talking preemption you at least have to talk about

a national standard that has credibility and provides information that consumers want. in this case, we strip from the states the right to do what they believe is in the interest of their citizens and don't substitute any serious label that would apply across the board. so this claim that this would create a patchwork of different state laws is not addressed when you don't even offer a national standard. next, it would allow, quote, natural claims on g.m.o. foods and block state laws that prevent such claims. so this legislation fundamentally takes away from your state and mine the ability to do what they believe is in the interest of their consumers. let them know what they are buying. by the way what's the problem with letting consumers know what they are buying? they are the ones that allow -- decide what products they want to consume. the issue here again to repeat, it's not about the science of

whether g.m.o.s cause health problems, but there is a significant issue about g.m.o. products requiring significantly more herb sides -- herbicides to produce. and the use has gone from 16 million pounds to about 280 million pounds since the introduction. those farming practices do have an effect. and some people are really -- a lot of consumers are concerned about that. mr. speaker i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. -- the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from the great state of missouri mrs. hartzler. the chair: the gentlelady from missouri is recognized for two minutes. mrs. hartzler: thank you mr. speaker. today i rise to lend my support to h.r. 1599, the safe and accurate food labeling act. as a mother, farmer, and former nutrition education teacher, i understand the importance providing valuable information to consumers about where their

food comes from and how it's grown. if we are going to face the growing challenges of obesity in this country and increasing demand for food worldwide, each and every american is going to have to engage in an honest dialogue about our food production and contribution systems. it is important that these systems are based on sound science with the strong set of food labeling guidelines that are consistent across state lines. affordable for all americans. and provide accurate and easy to understand information on the package for those consumers wanting to know more. h.r. 1599 is a mirror image of the successful usda organic program that many of my constituents have come to appreciate and trust. this voluntary commonsense program is a compromise that balances the needs of both consumers and producers while providing a national path to getting consumers information they may want. thank you, mr. speaker for

bringing this timely bill to the floor. i ask all my colleagues to support h.r. 1599. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. i have stated at our two energy and commerce committee hearings on this issue that i'm sympathetic to the need for federal legislation. it does not make sense to have a patchwork of food labeling requirements in different states. i also do not believe that genetically engineered foods are unsafe. if they were unsafe, they would not be allowed on the market. however, i acknowledge that the majority of consumers want foods made with genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled as such. they view this as a right to know issue. while i don't know of any scientific reason to require the foods to be labeled differently foods, i not

believe we'll engender confidence in these foods if we pass this bill. i fear by preempting state right to know laws without creating any national labeling requirement, this legislation will be seen by most consumers as an attempt by congress and washington to prevent them from knowing which foods have g.e. ingredients. and therefore i intend to vote against the bill. however, i also understand why others think this bill is important and will vote for it and obviously it's up to any member to decide for him or herself how this affects constituents in their own districts and vote accordingly. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. collins. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. collins: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of h.r. 1599, the safe and accurate food labeling act. at today's global food chain expands, consumers deserve to know what is in their food. h.r. 1599 eliminates confusion and saves taxpayers from

shouldering the costs associated with a patchwork of state labeling laws. additionally, h.r. 1599 ensures that our food supply is safe by clearly establishing the f.d.a. as the pre-eminent authority to make science based decisions concerning food safety. currently a patchwork of g.m.o. labeling has emerged across our country with some states having completely different food labeling requirements than others. this hodgepodge of regulation increases the cost of food for families and negatively impacts food producers. by increasing transparency, reducing the cost of regulations, and improving food safety, h.r. 1599 will bring our nation's food labeling into the 21st century. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota mr. peterson. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two

minutes. mr. peterson: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise to support h.r. 15 the 9 -- 1599. this bill establishes a voluntary nationwide usda administered certification program for labeling genetically engineered food products and we believe that this is a reasonable, workable solution that balances consumer demand to know more about their food with what we know about the safety of the foods that we produce. i didn't sign on to this bill initially because i thought we needed to make some changes, which were eventually made, and made the bill supportable from my perspective. the bill ensures -- this is very important point. the bill ensures that every new genetically engineered plant destined to enter the market has to go through an f.d.a. safety review. this change means that foods from genetically engineered plant will only be able to enter the marketplace after this happens and that's a change from

the current situation. h.r. 1599 prevents the unworkable scenario of a state by state, county by county, or even city by city mandatory labeling law. this patchwork of laws would only create confusion for consumers farmers, and food companies and would also drive up consumer grocery bills. i acknowledge that consumers want to know what they are eating and -- in my opinion 1599 provides them with that information. before we can do anything in this area, we have to define what this means. and if you talk to five different people about what genetically engineered or genetically modified means, you're going to get five different answers. one of the things that will happen with this bill if it becomes law is that the usda will go through a process to talk to all the stakeholders and come up with a definition of what this means. which is one of the most important things because right

now i think there's a real disconnect between the science on this issue and the consumers. what this bill does is allows companies like companies in my district to go and work with the secretary to create a nong.m.o. label nongenetically engineered labeled label, and then consumers can find out. mr. chairman, i yield back. then the consumers can find out if they want to purchase nongenetically engineered products. there are companies out there that are going to provide them. so i think this doesn't get to where a lot of people want to get, but it gets us a long way down the road. it will be able to define what this means. and put in place a workable solution that i think people should support. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1599 and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. to internear a colloquy with the

gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pompeo: when considering the substitute report by the agriculture committee, i would like to confirm the committee was aware of ingredients perfect crifed by genetically engineered crops they contain no genetically enneared material. i yield to the gentleman from texas for his response. mr. conaway: it certainly is our understanding that products and sugar is a good example may come from a g.e. crop but the finished product has no genetic material in it. 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 add and hope the gentleman from texas would concur this approach is consistent with the exemption from the labeling requirements for major food al letter gents that congress has established

for highly refined -- and the consumer protection act of 2004. while the allergens miling, egg fish, trees, nuts, soybeans must be listed on food labels where they contain protein derived from these elements, the definition of major food al letter gent excludes any highly defined oil derived from a major food al letter gent and any ingredient derived from that oil. i yield to the gentleman from texas for his response. mr. conaway: the gentleman is correct. this is a perfect example of why passage of this legislation is so important. mr. pompeo: i thank the gentleman. i yield to the gentleman from texas for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. conaway: thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of h.r. 1599 and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. conaway: mankind has used biological technologies for more than 10,000 years to improve crops and livestock and make

useful food products such as bread, cheese, and preserve dairy products. when applied to plant breeding these technologies have led to the evolution of every food product we consume. these and other advances have enabled us to broadly boast we enjoy the safest, highest quality, most abundant, affordable food fly and fiber mankind has known. as our knowledge has increased, so has the speed and precision which we are able to harness natural capabilities to improve the plants we cultivate. these new technologies, new applications of biotechnology have been available to american and international consumers for three decades. the safety of technology has been documented and confirmed by the world's leading scientific and public health organizations including the world health organization, the national academies of science, the american association of advancement of sciences, and the royal society of great britain. the house agriculture committee has frequently reviewed these technologies. we have reviewed the regulatory mechanism that have been in place since the reagan administration and have been

regularly assured by the absence of any valid concerns regarding the safety or quality of products derived from these production technologies. bio technology is an essential tool for farmers and our food supply to have the toolbox and if we plan to feed the estimated 10 billion people in the year 2050, in an environmentally sound, sustainable, and affordable way, they must be used. unfortunately threats exist for our ability to fully utilize this technology in the form of a proposed federal and state laws as well as some new state laws that would implemented soon if we don't act. passage of any new bio tech laws and amendments or implementation of those already passed will have a far-reaching negative consequence which we will debate today. . the legislation pays trish to the market driven programs administered. they will receive premiums in the marketplace, they have appealed to the growing desire

of many food-conscious consumers. one such example is the highly successful national organic program. many aspects of which we've replicated in this legislation. the structure and coverage of this legislation, like that of the national organic program, will ensure consumers have given reliable, accurate and consistent information related to the genetic engineering, whether it is at the retail level or restaurant. in developing this legislation, we worked with a bipartisan fashion between agriculture and the energy and commerce committee receiving and integrating the ideas and suggestions that conventional producers -- from conventional producers and handlers and more. opponents of this legislation have said there is no safety issue here that we're talking about. quote-unquote -- to quote scare, potential consumers. we believe this voluntary meets that need of letting the consumers know and i urge support of the bill.

i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: i yield to the gentlelady from hawaii, ms. gabbard two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. gabbard: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1599 which actually stands in direct contradiction to the wishes of almost 90% of americans across the country. it's no wonder that this legislation has more commonly become known to people who are very concerned about this issue as the dark act, or the deny americans the right to know act. and that's really what's at issue here. this legislation makes a mockery of transparency and leaves u.s. consumers in the dark. what are they so afraid of? why deprive americans of the ability to make educated choices about whether they want food with genetically modified ingredients? why make the labeling of such food voluntary? why not require it as we require basic nutrition information on processed foods

now? why not joint 64 other countries, including the e.u., japan australia, brazil and china in empowering our constituents with information making mandatory labeling? my state of hawaii is the number one state for experimental genetically engineered plant field trials, according to the usda. many of my constituents are very concerned about these g.e. crop field testing because of the lack of information about these trials and the pesticides that are being applied to the fields. on the island of kauai in my district, residents organized and passed an ordinance requiring large agrichemical companies to disclose the pesticides they're spraying and apply buffer zones around schools hospitals to prevent chemical spray drifts. the dark act could overrule the rights of these local communities to protect their health and safety and grow their agriculture industries. this legislation could overturn a ban on the cultivation of

genetically engineered coffee passed by hawaii island constituents, potentially damaging the global reputation of hawaii's famous and unique kona coffee, the only domestic coffee industry in our country. it could negate a ban on the cultivation of genetically engineered karo endangering a main staple and culturally significant plant for indigenous native hawaiians. this is why i'm calling on my colleagues to adopt the genetically engineered food right to know act. i ask my colleagues today to oppose the dark act and support commonsense labeling as we move forward. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: mr. speaker, it's clear there's misinformation here. this bill has nothing to do with rules of cultivation. state laws will continue to govern that. this is simply about labeling. i think it's important that everyone know that. with that i yield 90 seconds to mr. gibbs, the gentleman from ohio. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for 90

seconds. mr. gibbs: mr. chairman, i rise in support of h.r. 1599, the safe and accurate food labeling act. when any federal agency mandates what used to be a voluntary process it can only lead to a bureaucratic headache. a mandatory process would increase costs for businesses and consumers invite potential litigation and burden our nation's farmers and small businesses. i am pleased to see that this bill streamlines the voluntary f.d.a. labeling process with the help of the usda to make a combined joint effort to label food headed to the market. having uniform rules for a g.m.o. label it is a response to a patchwork of state and local labeling standards. h.r. 1599 will help give consumers an opportunity to make an informed choice at the supermarket while also advancing food safety and consistency in our food labels. i thank my colleagues at the agriculture department -- committee -- excuse me -- as

well as the energy and commerce committee for finding a way to make this change in a simple and most effective way, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. polis: i rise in opposition to h.r. 1599. i thank the gentleman from vermont. this legislation, which should be called the deny americans the right to know act, or dark act represents a major threat to consumer information. states have the right to determine their own local laws relating to g.m.o. labeling, and the federal government shouldn't interfere. i frequently hear republicans talk about states' rights and talk about the big, bad federal government, but when it comes down to it here they want to take away the rights of states and counties and the voice of the people instead to support huge corporations and companies. polls prove again and again americans want to know what's in their food. nine out of 10 americans support genetically engineered labeling, including a majority

of democrats, republicans, independents, whites blacks latinos. what can bring everybody together? this we are talking about -- we are talking about 90% of the american people. this is the rights of states to determine how they label their food. they are doing it as we speak. sell by requirements labels on bottled around -- water around deposits catfish, whether it's farm raised. we should not preempt here in washington at the behest of a couple major world corporations. we're talking about the rights of hundreds of counties and states and tribes to talk about how close to schools and hospitals pesticides can be used that relate to genetically modified orknisms. do we want pesticides used sprayed across your 5-year-old child's playground? these are the states we're talking about, not a handful of

activists. states, including the state like texas where legislation has been introduced. this bill will remove everything that has the right to know for people and for states. we need to stand up to fight for the right to allow states and consumers to make these kinds of choices for themselves. that's why i co-sponsor my colleague from maine's substitute amendment which will remove the preempt language from the bill. i urge my colleagues to oppose the dark act, to support consumer transparentsy and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: mr. speaker, we now heard multiple cases about this 90% number in a poll folks that want the labeling. this doesn't even pass the smell test. when consumers were asked to see the items labeled, a response to a 2013 study volunteered g.m.o.'s. the ballot box has been 100% consistent. every time a g.m.o. labeling bill has been presented to

voters of any state in the united states, they have rejected it. there is most certainly not 90% of the folks want to know that. this bill will not deny those handful that do. the right to do that. and it is disingenuous to offer up anything to the contrary. with that i yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. pitts: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 1599. there are real sensitivities around g.m.o.'s and all issues regarding the food we eat and feed our children and grandchildren. it is our job as policymakers, particularly as it relates to the public health, to establish a factually and a scientifically sound foundation prior to take any action that would impact our consumers. the bill before us today, h.r. 1599, does just that by ensuring national uniformity regarding labeling of foods derived from genetically

engineered plants by -- labeling laws interfere with interstate and foreign commerce. genetically engineering in agriculture has happened for centuries. they have been part of the u.s. food supply for decades. in fact, as much as 90% of our corn, sugar, beet and soybean crops are now genetically engineered and 70% of processed foods contain ingredients derived from such crops. the f.d.a. oversees the safety of all food products, from plant sources, including those from genetically engineered crops. these products must meet the same safety requirements as foods from traditionally bred crops. the f.d.a. currently has a consultation process in place in which developers of the underlying technologies address any outstanding safety or other regulatory issues with the agency prior to marketing their products. f.d.a. has completed approximately 100 of such consultations. no products have gone to market

until f.d.a. safety-related questions have been resolved. f.d.a. officials have repeated stated that the agency has no basis for concluding that bioengineered foods are different from other foods in a meaningful way and the world health association has confirmed that. quote, no effects on human food have been the result of consumption of such food, inened quote. they can cost less, prove more nutritious. there have been a number of state initiatives calling for mandatory lake lablinge of food products that contain g.m.o.'s. i'm concerned that a patchwork of state labeling schemes would be impractical and unworkable and such a system would create confusion among consumers resulting in higher prices and fewer options. mr. speaker, i commend representative pompeo and butterfield for their leadership on the legislation. i thank my colleagues of the agriculture committee for working through any issues, reaching consensus between the responsers, committees of jurisdiction and implementing agencies and impacted stakeholders.

i commend the legislation to the house and urge its adoption and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: thank you. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank our leader on this side and mr. mcgovern. ladies and gentlemen one of the most important lessons i've learned in the years i've been in this great body is that while -- we've got to beware of unintended consequences, and while some claim genetically modified organism's are safe beyond -- organisms are safe beyond a reasonable doubt, the fact is there is a great deal we don't know about a technology that alters the basic building blocks of nature. we have more to learn about how the widespread use of g.m.o.'s

could hurt the resilience of our food system by reducing the diversity of plant species. and there's more research to undertake on how the chemicals that are used concurrently with g.m.o.'s threaten human health. just this year, the world health organization found that the herbicide to be a probable cause of cancer. g.m.o.'s designed especially to be used with great quantities of this chemical and the herbicide being used increasing quantities around the world. that's why pope francis himself recently spoke of the need to exercise greater caution with regard to genetic manipulation by biotechnology. this is why more in an 90% of americans want g.m.o. labeling, according to recent polling.

mr. chairman, h.r. 1599 would make it impossible for people to even be mindful of unintended consequences. it makes it impossible for people to know what they're purchasing and eating. it prevents states from taking prudent actions to protect consumers and farm workers. our nation' leading -- our nation's consumer groups, food safety groups all oppose h.r. 1599 because it's an attack on transparency and a dangerous attack on our great from a digs of federalism. i -- great tradition of federalism. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: it's my pleasure to yield five minutes to my colleague from north carolina for getting the bill the state

it is in today. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. butterfield: thank you, mr. pompeo, for yielding time. thank you for your leadership on this issue. and thank you mr. welch, for your very thoughtful debate. i rise in support of h.r. 1599 and urge my colleagues to vote yes on final passage. this bipartisan bill, co-sponsored by 106 of our colleagues, creates a science-based nationwide labeling standard for plant-based foods. a establishes a national g.m.o.-free certification program, administered by usda, that will provide a government-issued label to qualifying products which will provide a market advantage. it requires the f.d.a. to conduct premarket safety reviews of all new g.m. plant varieties before they can be used to produce food and it requires f.d.a. to define the term natural through a rulemaking process allowing for public input and discussion. despite the downright false claims made by the opponents and what it will or won't do, h.r. 1599 is a measured

approach. it gives consumers certainty while taking into account the delicate balance and sheer size and complexity of the food supply chain that employs tens of millions of americans and is responsible for feeding the country. in my opinion is shared by the bill's 106 sponsors, by 475 agriculture, science, hunger nutrition organizations, from all 50 states. the alternative to 1599, already beginning to play out in some states across the country, is a complexed and unworkable patchwork of different state laws that create an uneven playing field that only can cause confusion among consumers and do little to provide transparency. depending on what state regulations require, farmers and manufacturers would be forced to set up separate supply chains in order to comply with as many as 50 different state laws. wholesale changes to growing, packaging and shipping foods would have to be made, beginning at the farm and all the way to the supermarket

shelf in order to comply. the new infrastructure requirements are as daunting as they are costly. and you can bet that all of these costs will be passed onto our constituents. recent studies showing the average cost topping $500 a year. for many of my constituents and others across the country, that will not work. but despite going in with knowledge of the consequences that would result from up ending a highly integrated and interconnected system, several states have already moved forward with proposals that would require foods containing these ingredients to be labeled. this is in response to an unsubstantiated claims foods with g.m. ingredients are dangerous. they are not. foods containing g.m. ingredients are safe. don't take my word for it. the science regarding the safety of bioengineered foods is not murky. the opposite in fact. there have been over 2,000 studies worldwide that shows food grown from these plants are safe.

the f.d.a. usda, the u.n. food and agriculture association, the american medical association, national academy of sciences, the american association of the advancement of science world health organization. nearly every major scientific organization agrees that foods produced with bioengineered products are as safe as their non-g.m.o. counterparts. even opponents of g.m. foods admit they have failed to have unhealthy effects but objective science proves the contrary. those opposed to these foods simply reject science. . along the with bill's co-sponsors, i stand with the science. that's why i worked with my friend mr. pompeo, and the bill's co-sponsor in advocating for a federal framework, a federal framework that puts the f.d.a. and usda, our nation's foremost food safety authority, into the driver's seat.

1599 is a balanced approach that reduces confusion by providing conconsumers with labeling uniformity across state lines. it also addresses the concerns of those opposed to g.m. foods by establishing a program at usda that will provide a federal certification for g.m.o.-free foods while not negligenting the fact that our nation's farmers an manufacturers grow and produce foods that are sold far and wide. without a federal standard, those farmers and manufacturers will be forced to comply with uneven, costly, potentially misleading, owns are state by state mandates. compliance will require new costly supply chain infrastructure that will disrupt our food supply. it will cause confusion, mr. chairman, and uncertainty among consumers and ultimately will result in the consumers shouldering the increased costs associated with reduction. in that regard, thank you, chairman conaway, for your commitment to work with our livestock and meat producers, many of whom operate farms and processing facilities in north

carolina to address concerns about the definition of those products in the bill. i share mr. conaway's commitment to getting the language right on those products and ensuring fair and accurate labeling. i thank you for working so diligently with mr. partyson on these amendments. in conclusion 1599 is reasonable and, mr. chairman, it is workable. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i have an idea. it's a radical idea. it's something that is unprecedented for this congress. something that would genuinely surprise the american people. and that idea is simple let's give the american people what they want. poll after poll shows that an overwhelming majority of the american people favor mandatory g.m.o. labeling. people want to know what's in their food that they eat and they want to know how it's grown. we should give them what they want. yet the bill before us goes in

the opposition direction. it keeps the american people in the dark about whether their food contains g.m.o.s. no wonder congress is so unpopular. to the supporters of keep americans in the dark bill, i would ask one simple question, what are you afraid of? this debate is not about whether g.m.o.s are good or bad. i consume g.m.o.s. my kids consume g.m.o.s. this is about consumers' right to know what's in the food they eat. plain and simple. as many of my colleagues know, i am fashion gnat about ending hunger both here in this country and around the world. if i thought for one second that g.m.o. labeling would cause food prices to rise, i wouldn't be calling for g.m.o. labeling. this is a scare tactic being used by opponents of g.m.o. labeling. the fact is, companies change their labels all the time for all kinds of reasons. transportation and commodity prices are drivers of food prices, not labeling. if you're worried about 50 states requiring 50 different labels, then supportp mandatory

g.m.o. labeling. do not override states that have already embraced g.m.o. labeling or consumers who want them. 64 countries already have g.m.o. labeling. why can't we? american food companies already have to label their foods as could be taining g.m.o.s in those countries. why can't american consumers have access to the same information? keeping consumers in the dark about what's in their food is the wrong approach. it is a washington knows best approach for politicians inside the beltway who think they know better than the american people. i urge my colleagues to vote no on h.r. 1599. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: the time remaining? the chair: the gentleman from kansas -- mr. pompeo: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. lamalfa: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 1599 the accurate food labeling act. i also have great appreciation

for the effort by mr. pompeo for thoughtful and bipartisan bill that will be successful. some of the opponents of this bill based on clear speculation and fear mongering are again trying to deny america's first industry farming, the necessary needs to grow more food to meet consumer demand in this generation anti-next. in what other industry do we discourage innovation? why is it that farming technology meets such scorn perpetuated by activist groups by tearing down modern acking a urel practice. states including my home state of california voters jeekted state mandated g.m.o. labeling. facts are clear biotext have facilitated the growth of more nutritious crops reducing pesticides by 975 million pounds. biotech crops also increased crops produced saved over 300 million acres of land, and helped alleviate poverty for 16.5 million small farmers and farm families while reducing agriculture's, wait for it,

greenhouse gases. while some of the colleagues across the aisle have advocated consumers have a right to know, and i agree, but mandated labeling will only cause more consumer confusion while drastically increasing the costs of food for families at the store shelf across the entire nation. this bill allows consumers to have a voice by establishing -- have a choice by establishing a voluntary nong.m.o. labeling program much like the organic program. it's about common sense in delivering consirmse what they want. choice and confidence while buying their foods without unnecessary confusion and high cost. the uniform standard helps achieve that goal. mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, mrs. capps. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capps: i thank my colleague for yielding. mr. speaker i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1599. this misguided legislation would

limit consumers' access to information about the food they feed eat by preempting state laws and codifying the current failedcies tefment i want to be clear, this is not a debate about whether or not genetically engineered foods are safe. it isn't a debate about -- it is a debate about whether or not consumers have a right to know what's in their foods. it's a point i hope we can agree upon. unfortunately consumers currently do not have access to the information they are looking for when it comes to genetically engineered foods. current labeling standards are so ineffective that consumers are often confused by the information that they do find. consumers should be able to trust that the labeling on food is both accurate and truthful. and consumers should not be confused about something as basic and fundamental as the food they feet. -- e-rather than fix this problem, h.r. 1599 simply perpetuates the status quo of confusion. the food industry claims that current voluntary system is adequate and consumers do have

the information they need. yet despite the fact that there are great numbers of genetically engineered foods on the market, very few of them have been labeled as such. our constituents want to know how their food is made and they are calling on us to help make this information more accessible. but instead of responding to this call, the flawed legislation ignores the problem and makes it harder to require labeling in the future. it removes the f.d.a.'s authority to craft a national labeling solution, yet also prevents states from acting on their own. simply put, this bill prioritizes profits over consumers' choice. and keeps consumers in the dark. that is why i strongly oppose this bill and i urge my colleagues to join me in voting no. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from washington state mr. newhouse. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for three minutes. mr. newhouse: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from kansas. as a third generation farmer and a former director of my state's department of agriculture, i

cannot stress enough the importance of this legislation for our nation and our world's food supply. yesterday i spoke on the merits of preventing a patchwork of conflicting state and local g.m.o. labeling laws which would require producers to sell potentially hundreds of different labels. i still believe that's a very important element to this debate. however, there's another aspect i'd like to address on why i believe this mandatory labeling law which some of my colleagues have called for is a very poor idea. mr. speaker i question the motives behind some of these arguments. they say they want consumers to have information. but that can actually be their concern because this legislation gives consumers information. it's disingenuous to claim it doesn't. if you want to go to a store and buy a non-g.m.o. product much like organic or cage free can you do that under this legislation. it will provide consumers all the information they need to purchase food they think is right for their families. so what's their motive?

is it they want to try to scare consumers to demonize -- mr. welch: point of order. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. welch: the point is speaker is questioning motives of those on the other side of this argument. the chair: is the gentleman asking that the gentleman's words be taken down? mr. welch: no. but i would suggest that the -- the chair: the chair would generally advise members to avoid perments -- personalities and motives of members. the gentleman from washington. mr. newhouse: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker anti-science, fear mongering strategies cannot be left unanswered. i believe there are few things people should know about bioing

technology. first, i appreciate anyone's safety concerns. that's why it's important to note that the usda and the f.d.a. rigorously test every biotech crop for human safety for years before anything can be brought to the market. and be clear, no pier reviewed study, there have been hundreds, has ever found g.m.o. foods have caused health concerns. ever. individuals have concerns about environmental impacts, and i appreciate that, too. but what many people don't know is by turning on just one gene in corn we now have a corn that is significantly more peft resistant which means huge reductions in the use of pesticides. can you do this with other crops as well. to be pro-biotech is to be pro-environment. there is a type of rice that is vitamin a enriched and has the ability to prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of blindness and death from vitamin a deficiency around the world. there is a really nafty type of

wheat rot called ug-99 spreading from africa anti-middle east that has the ability to -- and the middle east that has the ability to kill 90% of the world's wheat supply. this would cause global famine. scientists are looking at a way to create rot resistant wheat through biotechnology and gene sequencing which would save millions and millions of lives. mr. speaker, this technology is good. pro-environment. lifesaving technology. while i agree we need to have a system to give consumers the freedom to use it or not, which this bill does, we cannot allow anti-science opponents of biotechnology to use scare tactics that would cost millions of lives in the end. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. schrader: thank you, mr. speaker. as a veterinarian and organic farmer, having spent years in

the house agriculture committee i've studied g.m.o.'s very closely. and it's something i take very seriously. in fact, in the 1980's i helped write our state organic standards in oregon. for thousands of years, we've grown and bred plants and animals to choose the most desirable traits for breeding the next generations. in an effort to help them be able to resist pests disease and increase yields. through biotechnology, we've been able to increase productivity while reducing a number of inputs like water pesticides resulting in higher crop yields. they break or allow for better land managerment and conservation of marginal lands. g.m.o.'s in combination with good agricultural practices also improves soil quality, edeuce pollution by allowing apartmenters to till work the ground less often or not at all, reducing soil erosion and reducing the carbon footprint of agriculture. if you're worried about climate change and want good science, you should be for this bill. g.m. crops flourish in

challenging environments without the aid of expensive pesticided or equipment in alleviating hunger and food stress in the developing world this is precisely why i'm very concerned about the demonization of biotechnology and the rejection by many of the supporting science behind it. food labeling should be about health and safety. the -- it is to provide uniform protection for consumers across this country. avoiding a patchwork of politically motivated nonscientific, mythological ideas. we've heard from many on polls. i'd like to cite one. the pew research center conducted a poll recently and found that 90% the scientific community found genetically engineered food poses no health threat. 1599 provides a uniform standard through a usda administered program ensures

national uniformity for non-g.e. claims and provides consistency in the marketplace while ensuring consumer confidence and integrity of the label. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> i thank my colleague mr. pompeo. i know it's not an easy path to get to where we are all to allow consumers in all 50 states to be able to know what's in their food. mr. davis: my colleague, mr. pompeo, our congratulations are to you and the hard work that you and your staff and those in the house energy and commerce, house ag committee put forth to make this bill a reality today. i'm proud as a subcommittee chairman on the house ag committee for biotechnology, horticulture and research, to put my name on an amendment to this bill. i'm proud to stand here today to support this bill as a member of that committee and also as a dad who's responsible

for shopping for many of the products that we're going to see this label put on in the grocery stores when i go home every weekend. biotechnology is crucial to our ability to feed the world. it's a critical technology and so much so in my district in central illinois that earlier this month i went on a biotech tour in my district. i visits plants and research facilities from litchfield illinois, to clinton illinois. met with workers, scientists committed to developing better seed products that will help us feed a growing world. mr. chairman, it will help feed a growing world. so many people that don't live in this great country, where we take for granted our ability to have access to the safest food supply on this globe they don't have access to food. biotechnology allows us to grow that food in countries where people need food. to eat.

they don't know where their next meal is coming from, and without biotechnology, we're not going to be able to feed the billions that are going to be required in the coming years. i want to tell you about pioneer. pioneer technology in litchfield, illinois, is developing a seed, a soybean seed that won't have transfats. i thought that was good, mr. chairman. but this is the type of technology that we're having here. science is on our side. science shows that g.m.o.'s and biotechnology are safe. as a matter of fact, just earlier today, i was at a panel discussion with alexis taylor, the deputy secretary for farm services here at usda and she even made a comment that g.m.o.'s are good for climate change. that should make many of my colleagues in this chamber happy. but unfortunately i don't think that will get them to yes on this vote. we're hearing a lot about

motives, mr. chairman. our motives are to make sure that every single american in all 50 states has access, has the transparency, knows what's in their food and this is exactly what h.r. 1599 is going to do for every single one of them. every mom and dad in this country is going to know what's in their food. and that is exactly why we're doing this. that is exactly why i'm here to support this bill, and that's exactly why i'm proud of my colleague, mr. pompeo, for doing exactly what we're going to do today. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from vermont has 12 minutes remaining. the gentleman from kansas has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record two articles mandatory g.m.o. labeling in the national farmer -- and the national farmers union reiterates this. the chair: it will be covered under general leave. mr. welch: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon mr. defazio. the chair: the gentleman from

oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i was pleased to hear the gentleman who preceded me in the well acknowledged climate change and said that g.m.o.'s are the solution. i do believe that climate change is a problem. i don't think solution. let's go to some of the arguments we've just heard. this is what we've been doing for millennia, hiberization. you graft a plant onto another plant. i'm not sure the last time when a flounder made it with -- mated with a tomato plant but now we have tomatoes that have injected into them flounder genes in order to enhance production. or the last time an eel mated with a salmon. they are putting eel genes into genetically modified salmon frankenfish so they will grow twice as fast as other fish. twice as fast. they say don't worry. they won't get out and besides that most of them are sterile. yeah right. ok. what happens when they do get out and they begin to

cross-breed with real salmon as opposed to eel salmon or whatever these things are? now, this bill would prohibit any labeling. you catch a real salmon, it's a salmon. you present someone with a g.m.o. eel salmon, it's a salmon. can't distinguish. you don't have to disclose. so that's not exactly hiberization folks. politically motivated nonscientific and scare tactics because we want to have it disclosed that g.m.o.'s are contained in the product, well, i didn't hear it when they required red dye number 2 or cellulose. why not g.m.o.'s? 64 countries require the labeling the products that contain g.m.o.'s. not just america. b.a.s.s.ians of democracies like china russia, saudi arabia. they require it for their consumers, but, no, we're not going to allow that in the united states of america. proliferation of labels, yes, that's happening at the state level.

and that's states' rights which republicans are normally for unless it's something they don't like and then they're against it. there's a solution to that. my bill which would require a uniform national label which just simply says, contains g.m.o.'s. it won't cost any additional money. mr. welch: an extra minute. mr. defazio: we heard a lot about pesticides. that's great. let's talk about resistant corn. they are using more pesticides today on cornfields than they did historically. more. and they had glyophosphate resistant corn. they dumped it on them. taking over the cornfield. all right. let's change that up. we are going to have 24-d. remember agent orange? pretty darn close. resistant corn. they will dump millions of 24-d

on this resistant corn. that's the net result of this sort of forward movement that they're touting as helping us deal with pesticide and herbicide issues. oh, don't worey. there will never be a 24-d resistant wheat. don't worry. there will be a more toxic chemical. they're addicting farmers to their products and addicting farmers to buying more and more of their pesticides. and we have now seen milk wheat wiped out in the west, causing a crisis with monarch butterflies which is a critical pollinator. most don't know that apparently. and that's the result of this glyophosphate and 24-d. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from new york, ms. clarke. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. clarke: i thank my colleague. i rise in opposition to h.r. 1599, the safe and accurate food labeling act, known as the dark act.

one of my concerns is that this bill blocks the f.d.a. from creating a national mandatory g.m.o. labeling system. the current voluntary labeling system is not providing consumers with the information they need because only 2% of the products on the shelf have voluntarily submitted to the non-g.m.o. labeling process. it's apparent that mandatory labeling is southerly needed and such -- sorely needed and such as the kind by representative defazio's bill, the right to know act. in addition, what has happened to the outcry for states' rights from the other side of the aisle? this bill preempts states from passing their own g.m.o. labeling laws. this would essentially invalidate the will of the people and in so doing limit the states' ability to respond to the individual needs of its constituents. there have been many discussions and conversations surrounding this bill. one such discussion has been extremely troubling, debasing and scornful.

specifically, there are some who say that poor people don't care what is in their food, nor do they care what they eat. let me be clear. i don't care whether you are wealthy or poor, all americans deserve to know what is in their food. poor people are first and foremost human beings and they are not marginal subordinates in a democratic civil society. poor people deserve the same respect and consideration as the wealthy and despite what some may think, poor people do care about what they -- what food they eat and they should be able to choose what they put in their bodies. i say all americans deserve to know what's in their food and i ask my colleagues to join me in opposing h.r. 1599, the dark act. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. costa. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. costa: thank you very much.

i rise to urge my colleagues to support the safe and accurate food labeling act before us. this legislation, i understand, creates a great deal of angst among various supporters and opponents, and we've heard that. but it also creates a uniform science-based labeling standard, and i think that's a move forward. it also creates federal regulations for the food and drug administration and the united states department of agriculture to remain preimminent authorities in food safety and labeling. just as it has been for decades. additionally, it creates a national g.m.o.-free certification program so consumers who choose to buy non-g.m.o. foods have the ability to do so without the higher prices or the misleading labeling. this legislation does not reject consumers' rights to choose. while the opponents of this

measure wish it would do other things it does not. i think it's a balanced attempt. furthermore, the voters of california, as many of you may know, recently in proposition 37 had an opportunity to put in g.m.o. labeling. 42% said yes. 58% of the voters of california said no. i urge we support this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: we have no more speakers and i will close. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 6 1/2 minutes. mr. welch: thank you. i thank mr. pompeo, my colleague on the energy and commerce committee. good man. sometimes misguided but he likes ben and jerry's ice cream. i appreciate that. g.m.o.-free. i want to address seriously the arguments you made. number one, this is a serious issue. it's a serious issue first of all because this legislation puts handcuffs on all of our state legislatures from doing whatever it is they deem in the

best interest of their people. secondly, it puts handcuffs on voters. mr. pompeo said that voters have rejected this. in some ballot initiatives that's the case. why take away the power from some voters and invest it here? so this is a very serious policy question where the united states house of representatives is intruding into the efforts of states to represent the people that they serve. and by the way three states have passed laws by overwhelming margins. you know, in vermont the vermont senate, bipartisan body, it was a 26-2 vote. the vermont house, bipartisan body, it was 114-30 vote. in connecticut, it was 134-3 in the house and 35-1 in the senate. . in maine it was 114-4. it was unanimously passed in the senate. what we're doing in the house of representatives right now is saying to the vermont legislature saying to the maine

legislature and saying to the connecticut legislature, drop dead. this law, what you passed, we're taking away. i don't think that's right. but i'll make an acknowledgment. sometimes it is the right thing for the federal government or the congress to preempt state action so that it can have a uniform, across-the-board standard. that's what the defazio bill does. it acknowledges that so you don't have this patchwork. this bill, with voluntary labeling in effect creates a patchwork. does it mean that company a decides they do want a label and they write the label they want, company b writes another label or doesn't? what does that mean for consumers? first of all, in all likelihood there will be no labels. secondly, there will be the patchwork produced by this legislation that is what the critics of the state by state approach say they want to avoid. next, there was an assertion by my friend from texas mr.

conaway, that a label is a warning. and i think that really goes to the heart of what the dispute here is, is a label a warning? in fact, the proponents of the defazio bill, and the opponents of this bill, are not asserting that the purpose of the label is to suggest there's scientific evidence indicating g.m.o.'s cause health problems. what a label is is information. and the consumer then decides. your consumers and my consumers. they decide. and whatever their reason is, they have a right to decide to buy product a or b, depending on what's in it or what's not in it. and what is the big fear about letting consumers know? a lot of the big advocates that are pushing this are in fact some of these manufacturers that create products that they sell to farmers. mr. defazio outlined that in his argument. they fear that the label will

reduce the sale-ability of that product. here's the irony. if what they're producing in selling -- and selling is so good and so nutritious and so tasty and so yummy, why not let the consumer know what's in it? that would be something like you would want to advertise. so this really is a very profound decision by this congress. number one, it's telling states that have been taking initiative on the basis of their citizens' desires that he can't -- they can't do it anymore. number two, in the name of getting -- of avoiding a patchwork of -- a set of regulations, it's creating the nesktability of a patchwork -- inevitability of a patchwork. and then three, in a very basic way, it's telling american consumers that it's really none of their business what's in their product no matter how much they really want to know what's in their product. so, i urge that we vote no and

defeat this measure and stand for state rights and consumer rights to know. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kansas. >> i yield myself the balance of the time to close. as i close i'd like to offer my thanks, first to mr. welch for the respectful debate today, and for the ice cream. i'd like to thank my lead co-sponsor, mr. butterfield for his hard work all along the way as well, the chairman of the congressional black caucus. he has leaned into this and really made us able to get where we are today. i'd like to thank chairman upton and chairman conaway and ranking member peterson for their support and effort in getting this legislation to the floor as well. mr. pompeo: i'd like to thank all of the staff on the energy and commerce and agriculture committees for their hard work too and i'd be remiss if i didn't thank blake on my staff who put in long hours making sure this commonsense, bipartisan bill was ready for the floor. mr. chairman, it's really very simple. h.r. 1599 has two very simple goals. first, to ensure that families in kansas and across the country have access to nutritious and

affordable food. and second to make sure that those who wish to avoid food products that contain g.m.o.'s will be able to do so. that they will not be denied the right to know. in place of a patchwork of loop-holed labeling laws, we'll ensure our food policy is science-based and transparent to consumers. let's be very clear. consumers who wish to avoid foods containing g.m.o.'s are able to do so today. and they will be able to do so after this bill becomes law. except it's better now. there will now be a clear standard about what that term really means. this is a commonsense, pro-consumer, pro-farmer bill that brings clarity to food labeling and keeps affordable food for our constituents. i encourage all of my colleagues to support h.r. 1599 and i yield back the balance of my time. choip the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all -- the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on agriculture, printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under

the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 114-24, modified by the amendment printed in part a of house rule 114-216. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part b of house report 114-216. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a member designated in the report shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 114-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 114-216 offered by mr.

defazio of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 369 the gentleman from oregon and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. defazio: i thank the chair. well, you know, there was a time when monday santo supported labeling -- monsanto supported labeling. here's what they said back then. we encourage -- here it is. they fully support u.k. food manufacturers and retailers in their introduction of these labels. we believe you should be aware of all the facts before making a purchase. we encourage you to look out for these labels. that was then, this is now. now monsanto says such labeling and their allies in this fight say such labeling is impossible, impractical unnecessary. but there was a time when monsanto was proud of their

genetically modified organisms. why not now? we've heard all these arguments, some of which aren't exactly accurate, about the great benefits of g.m.o.'s and why not put on there g.m.o.'s solve global warming? put it on the label for all the people who are concerned about climate change, that would be something. now, 64 countries around the world require labeling. and many, many u.s. firms, large u.s. firms actually do label in those countries. the countries are all of the european union, that's a pretty big slice of the world economy, china, japan, australia, south korea, brazil india, new zealand, russia, ukraine, kazakhstan and saudi arabia. now, all those countries require it. u.s. manufacturers ship products to those countries and they put it on the label. now, hershey's doesn't, you know, is not the only company that does this. but this is a hershey's label.

and it's made in the u.s.a. we like that. we like exporting things around the world. so we're very proud of the exports of hershey's and other food manufacturers. but because of the laws in sweden they have to say contains genetically modified organisms. somehow they can do that there and not i mean, the e.u. has consistent rules and my bill would have rules consistent with the e.u. so they could make one label which would go to about half the world's economy. that would probably, i mean, if it really cost money to print different labels, that would actually save them money. it would do away with this argument about a proliferation of various different labels across the u.s. but there are some other countries that have different requirements and they do still export to those countries too. so they can't have a uniform, overseas label, but they can get darn close with all of the european union united states and new zealand and australia, virtually identical. now, it isn't just hershey's. there are 50 of these, you know,

there are these large companies go into at least 50 of the 64 countries that require labeling. pepsi, tyson's, necessarily, coke mars, hershey, kellogg and heinz. i was contacted by hershey and they said, we can't deal with the proliferation in the states. then they should support my bill. get a uniform national label. let consumers know it contains g.m.o.'s. monsanto can go out and tout the benefits or others can tout the benefits of g.m.o.'s, then they can have one label for the e.u. and the united states with that i reserve the balance of my time -- united states. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pompeo: mr. chairman, the united states should not let other countries dictate u.s. food policy. this would be absurd. it's 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. let's just say for the sake of argument we were to pass this amendment. i'd 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 f.d.a. for responsibility for food inspection. but in many pro ponalts of mandatory warning labels are quick to point out, the f.d.a. inspects less than 1% of the products. other proponents of just do this

for show, or do they 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 response -- -- amendment's sponsors are accurate. this would take us backwards. it would require even more patchwork set of rules. i urge we get to uniformity. the logistics of enforcing every product label and their counterpart in 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 bess to grow -- best to grow our economy. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon. the gentleman has 15 seconds remaining. mr. defazio: 64 countries require labeling, including the european union. this would give companies an opportunity to have the

consistent label across the united states and into the european union. consumers want this. the polls are consistently, 88%, to monsanto spends $20 million, $30 million like they did in oregon convincing people to drive up food costs, then they won by 1/1000th of 1% in that election after spending a record amount of money. americans want to know what's in their food. don't put them in the dark. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: 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. with that, mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. mr. defazio: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in

part b of house report 114-216. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 114-216 offered by mr. huffman of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 369, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to offer an amendment to ensure tribal sovereignty is notted in a vernltly harmed by this legislation -- notted in a vernltly harmed by this ledge -- is not inadvertently harmed by this legislation. much of the debate this morning has focused on how and if this bill will preempt state and local laws, which would include ordinances in my district that have been adopted by counties. i agree with my colleagues, we deserve to know what's in our food. and this bill prevents local and

state governments from providing consumers with that information. the information they want. but in today's debate, little has been said about the need to protect the principle of tribal self-governance. i recognize that some of my colleagues believe the manager's amendment addresses any concerns regarding preemption and trifle sovereignty. i disagree. that's why i'm offering this amendment, to address any potential ambiguity in the bill and to ensure that tribes can continue to take action on g.m.o.'s, as many of them have sought to do. if the underlying bill is supposed to protect tribal sovereignty i would hope that the bill's supporters wouldn't mind making that protection explicit. . by passing this amendment. in 2013, the american congress of american indians passed a resolution call on congress and the federal government to, quote, preserve, protect and maintain the integrity of traditional native foods seeds and agricultural systems, support the labeling of seeds or products containing g.e.

technology and ingredients, create g.e. and transjenic crop-free zones and oppose g.e. seeds in the united states. this would create the national standard for g.m.o.'s that ncaii has asked for. now, this is not just about crops, mr. chairman. the affiliated tribes of northwest inians which includes several tribes in my district, strongly opposed to the f.d.a. approval of genetically engineered salmon due to the potential -- the potential harmful impacts on wild salmon that are so important to the tribes and to frankly the commercial economy in my district. under this legislation, it's hard to see how f.d.a. could ever require the labeling of genetically engineered salmon. with the significant concerns over g.e. foods and the proactive steps that tribes are taking on their lands and resources we ought to make clear that this bill will not affect tribes' authorities to

prohibit or restrict the cultivation of g.e. plants on or near tribal lands. now, the cronl research service has taken a -- now, the congressional reference service has taken a look at this. in the case of tribes, we should leave no ambiguity. no matter how we feel as the legislation as a whole we should clarify that tribes should retain the authority to restrict g.e. plants on their own lands if they so choose and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition in mr. pompeo: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. pompeo: simply put h.r. 1599 does not prohibit local governments from passing and enforcing bans on cultivation of genetically engineered crops. similar, it does not do that with respect to tribal sovereignty either. the bill before us applies only to the food use and labels. there is nothing in this legislation that any opponent can point to that suggests or

implies interference with state or local ordinance related to plant cultivation. period. likewise, the preemption provision that the amendment seeks to modify only applies to states and political subdivisions thereof. tribal lands are sovereign. they are not affected. if the amendment's sponsor wishes only to clarify sovereign rights to tribal governments on their land, then we would be happy to work with him. but the structure of this amendment appears to provide tribal governments with some level of authority on lands outside of their boundaries. this may or may not have been the intended purpose of this amendment but it has serious unintended consequences. i'd urge the sponsor to withdraw this amendment, allow us the opportunity to work together to address their concerns. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. chairman. the intent is not to prohibit or restrict or preempt tribal sovereignty why not make it clear why not pass this amendment? and with that i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from oregon, mr.

defazio. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. defazio: the preemption in this bill, prohibits states from labeling g.m.o.'s and a label for natural, which will contain g.m.o.'s or can contain g.m.o.'s and still be labeled natural and then finally a very poorly written, vague section that seems to preempt allstate regulations and tribal regulations. the navajo nation has a ban on the cultivation of genetically modified crops. they're trying to preserve their indigenous crops. states have provided for buffer zones in 30 states. this bill, i believe will preempt those 30 states from establishing buffer zones to protect conventional crops. we had conventional wheat in oregon that was banned from export because of g.m.o. pollution. conventional wheat. let alone organic wheat which would be worthless if it had g.m.o.'s.

not preempting state departments of agriculture establishing reasonable rules to protect conventional and organic farmers from g.m.o.'s. i believe that part of the bill is very vague. and this, i believe, could preempt tribal sovereignty, state sovereignty and reasonable regulations to protect other farmers -- reasonable provisions to protect other farmers. mr. pompeo: it says no state or political subdivision by a state may or may not establish -- in interstate commerce any requirement with respect to genetically engineered plants that is not identical to the requirement of section 461 of the plant protection act. with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. huffman: i would respectfully disagree that that language is clear but i would note that that language says nothing about tribal sovereignty. so mr. chairman colleagues this is a bill that is deeply flawed. it should be opposed for all sorts of reasons, but here's an

amendment that would at least make it a little better for those of us that represent indian country, for those of us that care about tribal sovereignty, for those of us that want to protect the tribes who have taken action on their land who have in some cases partnered with states for buffer zones near tribal land. we ought to at least take this additional step to make it clear that they can do that. we're not running roughshod over their tribal sovereignty. and with that i request an aye vote and yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: nothing in this bill will hurt tribal sovereignty one iota. mr. chairman, i urge colleagues to vote against this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. huffman: recorded vote requested. the chair: the gentleman requests a voted vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 114-216. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? ms. delauro: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 114-216 offered by ms. delauro of connecticut. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 369, the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: mr. chairman, i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: mr. chairman, my amendment would make clear that foods labeled natural cannot contain genetically modified material. i want to emphasize right from the outset it is about our basic right to know what we are

eating and what we are feeding to our children. f.d.a. already requires clear labeling of over 3,000 ingredients additives and food processes. one example, fruit juice must indicate whether or not it's from concentrate. clearly that's not a judgment on food safety. it's a simple matter of transparency. g.m.o. -- calling g.m.o. foods, quote, natural, is not transparent. it is confusing, and we have the data to back that up. as members can see from the chart behind me almost 2/3 of american adults believe that natural already means g.m.o.-free, and 84% agree that that's what it should mean. we need to make sure that food labels reflect that commonsense understanding. as drafted, this bill would do the opposite. it would codify the status quo, eing that food companies can put natural on a product even

if it was genetically engineered, which allows misleading labels. it would perpetuate misunderstandings and confusions. it would keep american families in the dark. this is not what the american public wants. nearly 90% want clear g.m.o. labeling. in response, three states, vermont maine and my own home state of connecticut, have passed restrictions of labeling of foods that do not contain g.m.o.'s. several other states are considering similar laws. without my amendment this bill would nullify those state laws. this would represent a serious setback for the right to know in these states around the country. mr. chairman american families want clear information about g.m.o.'s. they deserve that information. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. davis: mr. chairman, i wish to rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. davis: i'd like to reserve

the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. delauro: mr. chairman, i'd like to recognize my colleague, mr. defazio, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. defazio: this bill would deceive consumers. it would say that there will now be an f.d.a. definition of natural. the f.d.a. has never ever wanted to try and define natural. and that it would include g.m.o.'s. something labeled as natural, cherrios, naturally favored, if it contains g.m.o.'s they wouldn't have to say that. so consumers often in fact confuse the organic and the natural label. in fact, some polls show that consumers think natural is natural and they're not quite sure what organic is.

so this bill will muddy those waters further, deceive consumers and have things -- them buy natural when it contains genetically modified organisms. we can fight the label over disclosure, why would you want to muddy the waters and confuse things and create a federal definition and label for natural that contains g.m.o.'s? again, here we have all natural vodka, creamy marinara. that's something. this has a number of things in it that very likely contain g.m.o.'s. they do have to disclose and she does. cellulose whey vodka, of course. it's vodka sauce. so -- but in the future, natural contains g.m.o.'s, no disclosure. this is really, really i think probably the most egregious part of a very egregious bill preempting states' rights. remember, this is the party of

states' rights. until a state does something they don't like, then we got to preempt it. then they say, we can't have a proliferation of labels. well there's a very simple solution. my bill. one mandatory standard federal label that would say contains g.m.o.'s, and then that label could be sold into the european union. you would be able to sell to about half the world's economy with one label. whereas today, you got to have one label for the e.u., one label for the u.s. and then a multiple of other countries where 50 major corporations sell their products. this is so disingenuous. it's very discouraging. the chair: the gentleman from illinois? mr. davis: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: does the gentleman have speakers? how much time remains? the chair: the gentlewoman has one minute remaining. ms. delauro: does the gentleman want to use any of his time? mr. davis: i'll reserve to

close. the chair: the gentleman reserves. ms. delauro: mr. chairman, as i said at the beginning, this is not a question of safety or otherwise of g.m.o. foods. we need to ask ourselves a simple question -- does the word quote, natural really mean to a salmon engineer to grow at double the normal rate? a serial created in a -- a contrarily created in a lab -- cereal created in a laboratory, are they natural? our common sense say no. by overwhelming margins we want to know whether our foods contains g.m.o.'s. we are what we eat. and whether it's a number of calories in our kid's happy meals, the country where our beef was raised or the g.m.o. content of the food we buy at the supermarket as consumers, as parents, as americans we have a right to know. as drafted, this bill would fly in the face of that broad

consensus. keep us in the dark. for the sake of transparency and for common sense i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: mr. chairman, it's interesting. this whole entire debate we talked about science. the science clearly shows that genetically modified seeds foods are safe for every single american family. it's also interesting that my colleague brought a box of honey nut cherrios to the floor. my colleague talked about claims on that -- made on that box. it's interesting my colleague didn't bring a box of regular cherrios that sometimes contain the label of non-g.m.o. it's a marketing ploy. that's what we're trying to correct here. there is no g.m.o. oat. it's trying to convince consumers it's somehow safer even though there is no distinction of that cherrio that has that label and the

other cherrios box that doesn't. it's interesting to see those specific points brought to the floor to try and make this case. it's just clearly not resonating with the american people. there are no clear and consistent standards for the term natural which is why we're trying to correct this in this bill. we need to make sure that consistent litigation that has come about because of the very definitions of what the term natural means can stop. let's put a clear standard in place. . h.r. 1599 also requires f.d.a. to follow a notice and comment rulemaking process to define and set standards for the term natural. i thought this is exactly what the rulemaking process was supposed to be used for. this will allow for an open, transparent, public process so that the f.d.a. can establish such standards based on the facts, the science and the input received. this amendment -- this amendment would pre-determine that outcome and not allow for a

science-based fact-driven process that's open to the public to continue to move forward. i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and let's get on -- let's get on to the path to pass h.r. 1599 by this house. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from connecticut. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. ms. delauro: recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from connecticut will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 114-216. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maine seek recognition? ms. pingree: mr. speaker i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in part b of house report 114-216 offered by ms. pingree of maine. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 369, the gentlewoman from maine and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree: thank you very much, mr. chair. i appreciate the lively debate that's gone on today and want to speak in favor of this particular amendment. this is the pingree-defazio-polis amendment in the nature of a substitute. it strikes all of the anti-consumer and anti-farmer provisions of the underlying bill. by the way i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you. this comes down to a very simple proposition. do consumers have a right to know what is in the food they buy and that they feel -- feed to their family? as we've heard many times today, nine out of 10 consumers say yes. they support g.m.o. labeling. the public wants to know. more and more people care about what's in their food and where it comes from. people want to know more, not less, about what they eat. and we already know a lot about our food. we know how many calories are in it thanks to the labels, we know how much vitamin c we get per serving.

we know if a fish is farm-raised or wild-caught. and we want to know those things. we actually know if our orange juice is made from concentrate or not. maybe not everybody wanted to know that, but it's right there on the label. shouldn't we also be able to know if the food we are buying has g.m.o. ingredients? i know some of the opponents of labeling have suggested that consumers might be frightened by g.m.o. ingredients if they saw it on the label. do we really think that consumers are not smart enough to handle this information? do we really think that 90% of americans are wrong to want g.m.o. products labeled? not only does this bill make it very unlikely that we would ever see labeling of g.m.o. products on a national basis, it goes after the laws that have already been passed at the state level. just like my state of maine. our law was passed by a democratic legislature signed by a conservative republican governor, and it has a huge amount of public support.

but now congress wants to tell the consumers of my state and my state legislators they can't have this basic piece of information. i guarantee you if congress passes this law my state legislature and my constituents will not be happy. they do not want to see their ability to make those decisions taken away. not only does this bill go after state labeling laws, it may also preempt laws and regulations at a local level that protect farmers from a.m.t. by drift from g.m.o. -- contamination by drift from g.m.o. crops. some local and county governments have created buffer zones to protect farmers from contamination from g.m.o. crops and we've heard from experts who say this bill would preempt these laws. why would we want to do that? why would we want to undercut one of the fastest growing sectors in our farm economy, that's been very beneficial to rural states like mine,

revitalized many communities and

ms. pingree: thank you mr. chair. i'm very happy to yield two minutes to the ranking member of the agriculture appropriations committee and my good friend from california, mr. farr. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. farr: thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you for yielding. i rise in strong support of this amendment. the author is an organic grower. she knows about how people care about what's in their food.

i represent one of the most successful agriculture counties in the united states. i challenge anybody to find a county in this country that makes 4 $4.5 billion a year -- $4.5 billion a year growing over 100 different crops in one county. food is just like politics. it's all local. what the underlying bill does is strike local control. local control where people care about the methodology of growing, my area's the area that blossomed into creating this california state organic standards act, which i authored in the california state legislature, which became the model for the federal organic standards act. this preempts some of the regulations in there. that's not a good thing to do. and although the federal government may have the authority on interstate and commerce, i don't think that people want the federal government to preempt the ability for them to know their farmer, know their food, and to have it labeled as they so

choose in a local area. labeling is really important. what you do is you change the definition of labels here. one size fits all. that's not the way this country works. that's not the way farming works. and it's certainly not the way the consumers want to be. it's too early for the federal government, for congress to jump in and try to mix up this field. allow local politics to exist, allow people to choose, to know what's in their food, by allowing it to be labeled locally. and let's support american agriculture so we can sell it abroad. this amendment does everything but gain confidence. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from kansas -- mr. farr: the amendment is to be supported. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: i yield to the gentleman from illinois. mr. davis: i'm honored to follow my colleague from california. just a year ago or less than a year ago i was in his fine district and i saw the benefits of the agricultural industry in

california. actually toured an organic food processing facility in and around my colleague's district. i saw the impact of california agriculture and i want my colleagues to be assured that the organic labeling program is exactly what this bill is modeled after. the words that may have been developed in the california state senate and the california assembly are part of our national organic standards. because they work. organic is a voluntary program. just like we're trying to put forth. this is exactly what we're trying to do mr. chairman, to address the concerns of many americans who have contacted our office, who want a label. but americans also want standards. and when we hear words like contamination, it unfortunately contates a negativity to consumers that somehow g.m.o.'s are bad for them and that

science clearly shows they're not. as a matter of fact, i just walked over to the senate side and sat down with some of my colleagues who probably will not vote for this bill. and we didn't know because there was no label on whether or not that sandwich we ate contained genetically modified organisms. seeds. if it was produced with g.m.o.'s . we're trying to fix that. we would allow that sandwich shop to meet a set of standards just like organic growers do today to determine what a g.m.o. product means. and when we hear about trade i was with, earlier today, a member of the european parliament. and we were talking about some of the impacts that g.m.o. rules and regulations in the e.u. have done to impact their ability to get cheap food. so i would urge my colleagues to talk to those who are experiencing the exact same thing right now in our european countries that are our allies. talk with them about the

problems that europe's experiencing. because we're trying to stop that from happening here in america. and i want to make sure that we use science, we use the facts and we use a model of a very successful organic labeling program to write this bill. therefore my colleagues should be in favor of this if they're so in favor of the existing program today. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree: thank you very much, mr. chair. i'm happy to yield two minutes to the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee who cares deeply about issues surrounding our environment and public health, a member from new jersey, mr. pallone. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. pallone: i thank the gentlewoman. the amendment offered to h.r. 1599 by congresswoman pingree and congressman defazio would replace the underlying bill with a voluntary certification program for nongenetically engineered foods, enabling companies that elect to go through this process to certify

that their food is non-g.m.o. this amendment is a step forward in providing consumers with the information they want. and while this amendment would preserve the ability of states and localities to act in regards to labeling of non-g.e. and grment e. -- g.e. foods, it does not address the problem many of us have heard about today, which is a patchwork of food labeling requirements across the country. as i've said previously i can't support preempting state labeling laws without establishing a national mandatory labeling standard in its place. so moving forward, i hope that we can work with the senate to strike a balance that will address concerns we've heard on both sides of this issue. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. chair. i'm happy to yield two minutes to the hardworking congressman from oregon who cares deeply as

well about agriculture issues and the consumers in his state, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: i thank the gentlelady who represents the other portland. i have deeply appreciated her leadership and insight in this area. these are areas that touch americans on a whole host of levels. but one of the things that is important to note is that the extreme provisions of the preemption bill, the underlying bill that we are discussing, actually has significant negative consequences on hardworking farmers in our state. there are vast world markets that we export to and most of the world markets care about whether or not the product is genetically engineered or not. you can argue the merits, but the world market has made a

judgment. we had some cross contamination in wheat with the genetically engineered strain, set off alarm bells. oregon farmers lost business as a result of that. the underlying bill would undercut efforts of 40 states working with their local communities to try and provide protections. and whether or not you're going to label it, there's no reason that you can't provide reasonable buffers around crops that are genetically modified so that you can help provide some protection. why would we want to strip away the ability of state and local governments to provide those sort of protections? now, in the long run mr. speaker, what we need to do is just have a uniform national policy that labels these.

that gets rid of all the problems of multiplicity of labels and the costs and the confusion. my good friend from oregon, mr. defazio, has legislation that would do precisely that. but in the meantime, i deeply appreciate my friend from maine stepping up to get rid of the most egregious part of the underlying bill, create a program that they can label their products gennett lick -- g.e.-free, and get rid of these egregious preemption provisions. the chair: the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from maine. . ms. pingree: how much time do i have left? the chair: the gentlewoman from has two minutes remaining. the gentleman from kansas has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. pingree: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you very much. we heard a lot of arrangements about this bill today and the various components of it and why

the bill is not a good idea and why my amendment which would strike most of the egregious parts of the bill would be a beneficial way to change this. just to go back to my favorite example about labeling. the next time you go into a grocery store take a look at the carton of orange juice. right there on the front of the label you'll see the words from concentrate on most of the juice boxes. by law those words have to appear right there in the front of the label in letters at least half as tall as the name of the brand. that specific. now, the fact that we need to know the difference in that carton between fresh squeezed and made from concentrate or any other process that might have been used shows me that we have decided to have labels for almost everything you can think of except g.m.o. ingreed ynts. is it so important for --

ingredients. is it so important for americans to know whether or not their orange juice is made from a concentrate? don't you think it's reasonable to put a label somewhere on the back of a package of food telling consumers whether or not it contains g.m.o. ingredients? this bill if it's passed by the house, will effectively guarantee that consumers won't have access to that information when they go to the grocery store. this bill will take away the rights of states like mine in maine to pass laws that protect our consumers. states like maine vermont who have already passed laws like this will not have the right to proceed. the pingree-defazio-polis amendment will strike the worst parts of this bill. i urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from kansas. mr. pompeo: mr. chairman this amendment would put us right back where we are today with a patchwork of laws confusing consumers an making it difficult on american food companies to

compete around the world to feed the next billion people. this amendment would drive up the cost of food for every consumer in the united states of america by relegating them to the set of patchwork rules. we have heard today that this puts farmers at risk, makes life of farmers difficult. we have heard from representatives from maine who said that, yet the maine beverage association and maine poe tate toe board both endorse this legislation. -- potato board both endorse this legislation. we heard oregon farmers and oregon consumers, yet the oregon farm bureau oregon feed and grain association, organ potato -- organ -- oregon poe tate toe association and others endorse this bill. mr. chairman this amendment will gut this entire legislation. it takes away the important balance that has been struck in order to make sure that

consumers do have the right to know. we heard these vague epithets trying to rename this bill the dark act. denying americans the right to in a moment as a good conservative i can promise you this bill does not deny any consumer any right to know what's in their food product. if a consumer like my cousin who likes her genetically -- non-g.m.o. food, if she wants to feed that to herself and her family, when this bill becomes law, she will still be able to do so. i would never deny any american the right to know what's in their food. this is about freedom and consumer choice and affordability. our bill will achieve that. and this amendment would destroy that. i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from maine. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further -- proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 114-216 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number one, by mr. defazio of oregon. amendment number two by mr. huffman of california. amendment number three by ms. delauro of connecticut. the chair will redepuse to two minutes the nim time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 114-216 by the gentlewoman from oregon, mr. defazio, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report number 114-216 offered by mr. defazio of oregon. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the ayes are 123. the nays are 303. less than the majority voting in the affirmative the amendment is not agreed. amendment number 2 printed in part b of house report 114-216 by the gentleman from california, mr. huffman, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the will clerk are -- will redebt the amendment. the clerk: house report number 114-216, offered by mr. huffman of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. . this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 196. the nays are 227. less than the majority voting in the affirmative the amendment is not agreed . to the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 3 printed in part b of house report 114-260, by the gentlewoman from connecticut ms. delauro, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part b in house report number 114-216, offered by ms. delauro of connecticut. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or

commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 163. the nays are 262. less than the majority voting in the affirmative the amendment is not agreed . to the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule, the committee rises. the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 1599, and pursuant to house resolution 369, i report the bill back to the house with an

amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 1599, and pursuant to house resolution 369, the reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature of a substitute. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed no. the aye vs. it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the federal food, drug and cosmetic act with respect to food produced from, containing, or consisting of a bioengineered organism, the labeling of natural foods, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.

>> recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 275, the nays are 150. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk to change the title of the bill to the deny americans the right to know act, to reflect what the

bill actually does. it's a very straightforward amendment and i ask for your support. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: mr. polis of colorado moves to amend the title of h.r. 1599 to read as follows, a bill to enact the deny americans the right to know act or the dark act. the speaker pro tempore: under clause 6 of rule 16, the amendment is not debatable. the question son the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. -- is on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. under the rules, this is a 15-minute vote. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 this 15-minute vote on the amendment to the title will be followed by a five-minute vote on adoption of house resolution

370. once again, this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 87. the nays are 337. the amendment is not adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of house resolution 370 on which the yeas and nays were ordered.

the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 50 house resolution 370, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3009 to amend section 241-i of the immigration and nationality act to deny assistance under such section to a state or political unsubdivision of a state that prohibits its officials from taking certain action was respect to immigration. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 243. the nays are 172.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 243. the nays are 174. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, pursuant to house resolution 370, just adopted, i call up h.r. 3009 and ask for its immediate

consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3009, a bill to amend section 241-i of the immigration and nationality act to deny assistance under such section to a state or political subdivision of a state that prohibits its officials from taking certain actions with respect to immigration. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 370, the bill is considered as read. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 3009, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. goodlatte: thank you, madam speaker. i recognize -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i support h.r. 3009 the enforce the law for

sanctuary cities act, and commend representative hunter for introducing this legislation. it helps to address one of the main factors contributing to the collapse of immigration enforcement in the united states. sanctuary cities that prohibit their law enforcement officers from sharing information with federal immigration authorities to enable the removal of unlawful and criminal aliens. nearly 20 years ago, congress realized that sanctuary cities were impeding the federal government from enforcing our immigration laws and jeopardizing the safety of our residents, immigrant and native-born alike. legislation co-written by former chairman of the judiciary committee, lamar smith, prohibited states and localities from becoming sanctuaries for unlawful aliens. the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act of 1996 ensures that jurisdictions cannot prohibit or restrict government officials from sending to or receiving from federal

immigration authorities information regarding the immigration status of any person. unfortunately despite the proliferation of sanctuary jurisdictions, the justice department has never initiated a prosecution for violation of the 1996 act. if the administration won't act, congress must, and that is what mr. hunter's bill does. it withholds key federal law enforcement grants from sanctuary jurisdictions that violate the 1996 act. representative hunter's legislation will help persuade sanctuary jurisdictions to simply abide by current federal law and in doing so advance public safety. representative hunter's bill is an important first step, but there is much more we will need to do to rebuild immigration enforcement in the united states. once jurisdictions notify d.h.s. of arrested unlawful and criminal aliens, it is crucial that they hold these aliens for

transfer so that d.h.s. can launch removal proceedings. the center for immigration studies has revealed that in the first eight months of 2014, sanctuary cities refused to comply with d.h.s. detainers for 8,145 aliens. after releasing these aliens, in only an eight-month period 1,867 were arrested again for a criminal offense. once again san francisco's refusal to deal with a detainer resulted in the tragic death of kathryn steinle. that is why it is so important that jurisdictions honor d.h.s. detainers. in fact, just this morning we held a hearing in the judiciary committee where a representative from the steinle family testified. the conclusion of the witness was we need to make crystal clear that compliance with i.c.e. detainers is mandatory yet, this administration openly proclaims that detainers can be ignored and has chosen to

dramatically scale back their issuance. this administration has chosen to create enforcement-free zones for millions of unlawful and criminal aliens. it has turned the u.s. into a sanctuary nation. that is the current reality. despite d.h.s.'s pledge to prioritize the removal of serious criminal aliens in the last year, the number of administrative arrests by criminal aliens has fallen by a third. u.s. immigration and customs enforcement continues to release thousands of criminal aliens onto our streets. 30,558 in 2014 of which another 1,423 have already been convicted of new crimes. there are almost 180,000 convicted criminal aliens currently in removal proceedings living in our neighborhoods and almost 170,000 convicted criminal aliens who have been ordered remove from the country also still living free and causing

crimes on our streets. under the obama administration, the total number of convicted criminal aliens who are not being detained has jumped 28% since 2012 to a total of nearly 350,000. we must prevent this from any other administration from turning the switch on immigration. mr. gowdy has ensured enforcement of our immigration laws despite the purposeful inaction of any administration. his legislation the michael davis jr. and danny oliver in honor of state and local law enforcement act, allows states and localities to enact and enforce immigration laws of their own as long as they are consistent with federal law. jurisdictions could proactively take responsibility for protecting their communities and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system. today we are making an important down payment on

protecting our constituents, and i appreciate the majority leader's commitment to me that we will take additional action to ensure compliance with our immigration laws in the future. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3009, enforce the law for sanctuary cities act, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's recognized. mr. conyers: members of the congress, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 3009, the enforce the law for sanctuary cities act. this thoroughly flawed measure is a blatant attempt by the -- most of the majority to insert its anti-immigrant status agenda into local policing

initiatives. and it does this by prohibiting state and local governments from receiving critical criminal justice funds if they have policies that prioritize public safety and community policing over federal immigration enforcement. the bill absolutely makes no sense because rather than improving public safety, it will achieve the complete opposite, and that's not just my conclusion. law enforcement agencies from across the united states and numerous organizations such as the major county sheriffs association, the fraternal order of police, the law enforcement immigration task force, the united states conference of mayors and the national league of cities all

oppose this bill. in effect, this bill would punish law enforcement officers by withholding the funds they need to do their jobs, and it would require states and localities to prioritize federal immigration enforcement ahead of enforcing and enhancing public safety. reactionary proposals such as this legislation will only make our communities less safe because immigrants will not report crimes or otherwise cooperate with the police if they fear they or their family members may be asked for their immigration status. as a result, crimes will go unsolved and unpunished while criminals are free to victimize more people. in addition, withholding crucial united states department of justice funds

from local communities will not lower crime. studies have demonstrated that these programs, particularly the cops and byrne jag funds provide crucial support services to fight criminal activity, but a vote for h.r. 3009 is a vote to take these funds away and to risk making communities less safe. all of us on both sides of the aisle are opposed to violent crime. there is simply no debate about that. not one of us would condone what happened to kate steinle in san francisco, but 3009 is simply the wrong approach. i agree with the major cities chiefs association that the best way to reduce crime in

their cities is to gain the communities' trust and cooperation. i also believe that the majority of immigrants in this country are hardworking, law-abiding residents and comprehensive immigration reform would allow these law-abiding individuals to come out of the shadows and get right with the law. such legislative reform would enable immigration customs enforcement to focus its limited resources on deporting the worst elements while ensuring that our entire community, citizens and immigrants alike are protected from harm. instead of considering this commonsense solution, the majority, most of them have repeatedly voted to deport dreamers to deport the parents

of united states citizens and to deport vulnerable children fleeing persecution, violence and trafficking. and now the majority in the form of h.r. 3009 asks us to override the public safety mission of state and local enforcement agencies to increase deportations. i strenuously urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous legislation, and, madam speaker i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, it's now my pleasure to yield four minutes to the chief sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from california, mr. hunter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for four minutes. mr. hunter: thank you, madam chairman. let me say to chairman goodlatte, thank you very much for your leadership on this.

thanks for moving this so quickly. this is a timely bill, and i just want to thank you and your committee for moving it so quick. this legislation is about one thing. that's accountability. . the american people have the right to not give their tax dollars to municipalities and states that do not follow federal law. there's loss of changes to enforcement that must be imposed on sanctuary cities. we'll work towards those things. this republican congress will work towards those things. just as we are putting in motion a mechanism today that holds sanctuary cities accountable. i think we can all agree any locality must comply with the law. and they are required to coordinate and cooperate with the federal government. if an arrest is made, the federal government should be notified. the fact that san francisco and l.a. and other cities disagree with the politics of federal enforcement does not give them a free pass to subvert the law.

if they do there has to be consequences. the way we impose consequences on these sanctuary cities is by hitting them where it hurts that's in their pocketbook. it's simple, if you don't comply with the law as it stands now, then you don't receive coveted federal money intended for law enforcement. that money allocated for fiscal year 2015 alone almost adds up to $1 billion. $800 million are going to municipalities cities, counties, and states that care more about illegal alien criminals felons, than they do their own citizens. it's time we stand up to sanctuary cities and begin holding them accountable for their failure to uphold the law. i come as a representative that has sanctuary cities in my district. they are going to lose money for this. they are going to lose money because they are not complying with federal law. but the money that they get, this federal money that they get, it's taxpayer money from states like wisconsin, from new

york, south carolina, from florida, throughout the entire country. people around this country don't want their money going to states and cities that don't care to follow the federal law. again, if you're a state or city or locality, then you choose to defy federal immigration law, you'll be cut off from three federal programs of the the state criminal alien assistance program. the community oriented policing services program, and the byrne jack program. these are the three funds that will get cut if you are a sanctuary city. all you have to do to receive these funds is comply with the federal law. this bill is the first step in restoring accountability in our immigration system. our border infrastructure continues to fall short in too many places. and i'm as frustrated as anyone in this congress that the administration refuses to enforce federal immigration law. these are all serious issues that need to be addressed, and i look forward to working with this congress and chairman

goodlatte in the future to advance these goals. i urge all my colleagues to support h.r. 3009. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the that. virginia reserves. gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i'm pleased to recognize zoe lofgren of california for four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for four minutes. ms. lofgren: madam speaker, we have an immigration system that's badly broken. there are 11 million undocumented people in this country and contrary to what donald trump may think, the majority of these people are not rapists. they are hardworking people. spouses and parents of u.s. citizens dreamers, entrepreneurs. who want an opportunity to come forward submit to background checks and become fully american. faced with a broken system state and local law enforcement have adopted policies to enhance public safety and maintain community trust because when people are afraid of the police when they are afraid that the police might ask them or their family about their immigration

status, they are afraid to report crimes, unlikely to cooperate with investigations, and then criminals thrive and the general public suffers. this bill puts an impossible choice between state and local law enforcement agencies. they can either abandon policies that work or they can lose the federal funds they rely on to police their communities and protect them. dangers posed by this bill are real. 144 national state, and local advocacy organizations have written he opposing this bill because -- written opposing this bill because of the detrimental impact it would have on public safety. big cities but also little ones like dayton ohio most people don't think of as an sanctuary city. there they are told not to check immigration stay tuffs witnesses or victims or to ask about immigration during minor traffic stops. the police chief there has

explained that this policy has helped them have a safer community. according to the chief, after the policy was adopted, serious violent crime dropped nearly 22%, and serious property crime decreased almost 15%. madam speaker, why should dayton ohio, be barred from receiving funds for policing when their policies work? now, punishing the law enforcement officers by withholding the funds they need is not only incorrect, it's why the bill is opposed by the major counties, association, the sheriff's association, the fraternal order of police, dozens of sheriffs and police chiefs. the president has said, we should deport felons not families. and that's what his priority enforcement program does. but the second of homeland security told the judiciary committee just last week that withholding funds from

communities would be a huge setback in efforts to improve the relationship between d.h.s., state, and local law enforcement, and communities across the contry. it has been said -- country. it has been said that this bill is a response to the tragic murder of katherine steinle in san francisco. just up the road from my district. however, nothing in this bill would have prevented that outrageous murder of ms. steinle. nothing in the bill would have required the bureau of prison and i.c.e. to consult with san francisco to ascertain whether or not the 20-year-old warrant would lead to a prosecution. nothing in this bill would have required i.c.e. to obtain a warrant as is necessary to hold people beyond the term of their criminal sentence. nothing in the bill would even have affected the sheriff of san francisco's decision to release the individual charged with

murdering ms. steinle. that tragedy should not be used to advance a different agenda this bill. over the last year, we have come to the floor to vote on bills to deport the dream act kids, to deport the parents of u.s. citizens, to deport vulnerable children fleeing persecution and sex trafficking. today we are asked to vote on a bill that overrides state and local law enforcement agencies and decrease deportations all around. we had the votes to pass immigration reform in the last congress and i hope we can get back to that point -- i would ask for an additional 15 seconds. i would note that we have an opportunity here to learn from the tragedy in san francisco to come up with real solutions that would make our community safer. instead of using that tragedy as

an excuse to promote a different agenda. with that i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself 15 seconds to make it very clear nothing in this bill requires any officer of the law to ask any question of any victims of crime about their immigration status. all it does is prohibit cities and counties from ordering their officers to not communicate with i.c.e. or gather information from i.c.e. about the status of individuals. this is a good bill. now it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, the former chairman of the judiciary committee, and the current chairman of the science committee, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: madam speaker, first of all let me thank the gentleman from virginia and a good friend and the chairman of the judiciary committee for yielding me time. madam speaker, i support h.r. 3009 the enforce the law for sanctuary city act. the bill is appropriately named

since sanctuary cities violate current laws that require these jurisdictions to share information with federal authorities about illegal immigrants who have been arrested. h.r. 3009 helps enforce an immigration bill i introduced several years ago that became law. this legislation withholds certain federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions that hide the immigration status of illegal immigrants charged with crimes. these reforms serve as a first step in keeping dangerous criminals off our streets and out of our neighborhoods. sang two wirery -- sanctuary cities have increased under this administration you which has done nothing to discourage them. during only an eight-month period last year, sanctuary cities released almost 9,000 illegal immigrants charged with or convicted of serious crimes. one quarter have already been arrested again for committing more crimes like murder and sexual assault. when does it end?

i don't understand how anyone could oppose enforcing immigration laws. the victims are not democrats or republicans. the victims are innocent americans. many of the crimes committed by illegal immigrants could have been prevented if the obama administration had enforced immigration laws. instead it has chosen to ignore them and innocent americans continue to pay a steep price. i thank the gentleman from california, mr. hunter, for authoring this legislation and i urge its approval and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves . the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i would like now to yield to a senior member of the judiciary the gentleman from new york mr. nadler, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for four minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the

gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 3009, which will make communities across the country less safe from crime. this legislation would withhold needed federal fund interesting cities that prohibit their law enforcement authorities from collecting information on a person's immigration status or that have policies restricting the disclosure of this information to other governmental entities. many cities, including new york, have made the reasonable determination that they will not question victims of crime or witnesses to a crime about their immigration status. they believe that it is counterproductive to make them afraid to cooperate with law enforcement. but this note says we in congress knows better and in the name of protecting public safety we'll deny such cities the funds that they need to protect the public safety. many cities think that their communities are safer when the victim of domestic violence feels comfortable asking the police for protection from her abuser. without fear of deportation. they believe that witnesses to a

murder ought to step forward and assist law enforcement in tracking down the perpetrator without fear they'll face consequences of their own if they step forward. they think that good policing depends on building trust with their residents, and that's striking fear among immigrants that they may be deported if they report a crime makes everyone less safe. punishing residents of cities whose officials have made such decisions is both unfair and unwise. new york city alone could lose $57 million under this legislation. this would not only punish the public officials who set these policies and the undocumented residents in their communities, but it would punish all innocent people to depend on federal resources to protect public safety. my heart is with the steinle family. and we all share their outrage at kate's senseless murder, but this bill and other attempts to punish so-called sanctuary cities would do nothing to address the issues that might have prevented her death. instead of taking positive steps to improve communication between

federal, state, and local authorities, this bill simply demonizes immigrants and perpetuates the myth that they are more prone to commit a crime than is the native born population. this legislation might fit comfortably in donald trump's campaign platform but no business on the house floor. i urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield to the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyrs: -- mr. conyers: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i just wanted to make clear that the gentleman from virginia, chairman of the committee is wrong about this bill. he says it only prohibits states and localities from adopting policies about not communicating with i.c.e. this is not true. the bill also prohibits state

and local law enforcement agencies from adopting policies directing their officers not to collect information about immigration status for the general public. any individual, the bill says. any individual. so it doesn't state that state and local police must gather immigration status information for the federal government. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i yield the balance of my time. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds to say, again, nothing in the bill requires any officer to ask any question of any victim of crimes about their imcombration status. all it does is prohibit cities and counties from ordering their

officers to not communicate with i.c.e. or gather information status of individuals. this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, a member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. king: thank you madam speaker. i thank the gentleman, the chairman of the judiciary committee, and appreciate this bill coming to the floor. i hear this discussion and it seems to me there's a consistent theme that the people on the other side of the aisle are opposed to bringing together law enforcement. they say nothing in this bill could have prevented the tragic murder of kate steinle. i would suggest if we had no sanctuary jurisdictions in america, there's a lot greater chance that his deportation would have stuck and if we had a president of the united states who worked to get our law enforcement officers to coordinate at each level of our political subdivisions rather

than litigate when they do mirror federal law, likely we had a chance to prevent not only her tragic death but that of thousands and thousands of others. i support this bill. it is encompassed within an amendment i brought to the floor here on june 3 that passed with 227 votes. i congratulate duncan hunter for his persistence on this legislation that's six years long. i'm grateful to be working on an immigration issue with a second generation of hunters. i see there's much more enforcement that's ahead of us, but this is a step and it's a step that helps us find out, are people for a threat of enforcement and bringing some leverage to bring the political subdivisions in line rather than having them throughout the law which they've -- flout the law which they've consistently done and grown dramatically under the obama administration? there's much more that i'd like to do, much more to do.

i'd like to move kate's law. i'd like to make it incremental so it goes from a five-year mandatory to 10-year mandatory on second offense and move it up the line. i'd like to pass a new i.d. act so the i.r.s. can help enforce this. i'd like to build a fence, a wall madam speaker. and i'd like to repass the border bill we did last summer. there are a good number of things. we need to make detainers mandatory and tighten up the loophole language. all that we got a chance to do after labor day. today we need to do what we can do and that's pass the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. conyers: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you madam speaker. i'm pleased now to recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. price, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. price: madam speaker i rise in opposition to this misguided legislation.

offered under the false pretense that it has something to do with the tragic murder of kathryn steinle in san francisco. make no mistake ms. steinle's killer should not have been on the streets. we must get to the bottom of the official misjudgment and negligence and the bureaucratic breakdown that led to this tragedy. as the former chairman of the homeland security appropriations subcommittee, i take a backseat to no one when it comes to deporting dangerous criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety. but we also need to be very clear about this. this tragedy has nothing to do with so-called sanctuary cities. the bill before us would punish some of the most vulnerable cities high on the list, places like san francisco, new york, miami, chicago punish them for

exercising their lawful discretion in dealing with noncriminals or those with minor violations. they do this in order to protect the public and enforce the law which requires trust and cooperation with immigrant communities. to scapegoat entire cities and make law enforcement less effective through this bill is simply inexcusable. i urge its defeat. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia mr. goodlatte, is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds to say to the gentleman from north carolina this bill has everything to do with what happened in san francisco, the tragic murder of kate steinle was because the city of san francisco was not following the law and contacting the immigration service and doing things to make sure that he was deported. instead, they released him back

onto the streets. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. goodlatte: it's now my privilege to recognize the gentleman from california, mr. calvert, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. calvert: madam speaker, i rise today in support of this bill and support of american families. this week we've heard powerful and heartbreaking stories from families who have lost a loved one at the hands of an illegal immigrant. oftentimes, these individuals were able to operate freely because of the sanctuary policies of certain u.s. cities, policies that ignore federal immigration law. it is time this congress put the lives and welfare of american citizens and legal residents first. it's time to protect the innocent. this means not another kate josh dennis, danny, grant and countless others. it is time to penalize cities that willfully ignore federal law to the detriment of citizens and legal residents.

i encourage my fellow members to read this testimony from this week's senate hearing, read about the lives lost, the brutality of the crimes, the lack of remorse by the perpetrators and the heartbreak of the families. today we have a choice protect fellow americans or give sanctuary to criminal aliens. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i am pleased now to recognize an excellent member of the judiciary committee from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for 2 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. gutierrez: just a would you weeks into his campaign and donald trump has a bill on the floor of the house. that is better than some of the senators he's running against. donald trump announces his campaign saying mexican immigrants are mostly murders, drug dealers and rapists what

is the response from -- murderers, drug dealers and rapists and what is the response? some try to distance themselves from his comments. ok. but here we are on the floor of the house passing a bill to jump on the trump bandwagon, cynically exploiting a family's tragedy in san francisco to score political points. i have been very clear from day one, despite efforts by heardlines efforts, this lopez sanchez, who pulls a trigger in san francisco should have been deported and never turned over. i have no sympathy for him and i said on this floor and i will say it again murderers should rot in hell. the breakdown by the federal government, the federal government to deporting known criminals as they have done before to keep them in jail while -- is what led to an american woman losing her life. she's just about the age of my daughter when she was killed. a tragedy and a preventable

tragedy if the federal government had done what it's supposed to do and preventable if this congress does what it's supposed to do, address immigration years ago, as my side of the aisle pleaded you to do. but this republican proposal is not a serious attempt of fixing the problem. instead of piecemeal measures maximizing deportation, the congress needs to enact comprehensive immigration reform that combines smart enforcement at the border and the interior with a clear plan for reduesing the size of the undocumented -- reducing the size of the undocumented population in america. we do this by having a modern visa system so people can come with visas and background checks, not with smugglers or overstaying visas and just blending in. we do this by telling millions of people who have never committed crimes come forward, admit you're here illegally, go through a background check and go to the right side of the law. get them on the books so they no longer need to worry about their local police working with

or without the deportation system. if you get millions and millions of immigrants inside the law, then the ones who are criminals can't qualify to get inside the law, they will stick out like sore thumbs, not blend in to our communities across america and cause havoc as they did in san francisco. but this is a very -- but this is very specifically the approach the republican majority refused to touch with a 10-foot pole because they see demagogues like donald trump firing off -- mr. conyers: i yield the gentleman 15 seakeds. mr. gutierrez: but this approach of bringing millions and millions of immigrants inside the law so that we can get after the criminals that stick out like sore thumbs outside of the law, this approach is what has been the approach that the republican majority refuses to touch with a 10-foot pole because they see demagogues like donald trump firing off and want to take the easy way out.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, it's now my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. salmon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for three minutes. mr. salmon: thanks, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank my colleague, duncan hunter, for working with me in crafting this important piece of legislation. as a co-author of this bill i'm very proud of seeing the house taking action on in front. also want to thank leadership for bringing this bill to the floor. we're hearing some strange rhetoric here today, especially from the other side of the aisle. i hear about vulnerable cities. how about vulnerable tax-paying americans? i hear about sanctuary for thugs like the one that killed kate steinle. shouldn't our city be a sanctuary for law-abiding american citizens who have a right to walk on safe streets? make no mistake, this is a very, very important bill. from 2010 to 2014, the number

121 should stick in everybody's minds. 121 illegal immigrants with lengthy criminal records went on to commit murder after they were let out to do this -- their heinous crimes. that's why i was so appalled to hear one of my colleagues across the aisle call the murder of american citizens like kate steinle and my constituent, grant ronnebeck, a little thing. such disgusting remarks and flagrant disregard for life especially the lives of those that we claim to represent i find repulsive. in fact such calous remarks only serve to -- callous remarks only shows americans wanting us to protect our borders and citizens and stand up and take america back. it's time to stand up and be heard and demand that the

federal government fulfills this most basic duties. these sanctuary cities that refuse to uphold the law and openly broadcast the fact that they are flouting the law make our country less safe and only serve to perpetuate tragedies like the one we saw in san francisco. not only are these supposed sanctuary cities ignoring the law but they're broadcasting the fact illegal immigrant felons, like kate steinle's murder, a seven-time felon who flat out admitted one of the reasons he chose to stay in san francisco -- in fact, the predominant role he chose to stay because he knew they would protect him. well, who's going to protect law-abiding americans? when will american cities be sanctuaries for americans and not for illegal felons? unfortunately, these sanctuary cities are not being held accountable by this administration, which has demonstrated time and time again it has no interest in securing the border or

upholding existing immigration law. with this in mind i think that we have a responsibility to stand up and do what's right. this sanctuary cities policy and fixing it so that they have to abide by the laws that we pass here in congress to protect our borders and protect our citizens has to be adhered to. it's just common sense and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i yield the balance of my time to representative lofgren and ask unanimous consent that she be permitted to control the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lofgren: thank you. madam speaker, i would like to yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. beto o'rourke, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. o'rourke: i thank the gentlewoman from california for

yielding. madam speaker, i'd like to bring the perspective of my community, the community i have the honor of representing in congress, el paso, texas, to bear in this discussion. el paso is the safest community over 500,000 population in the united states today and it has been for the last four years in a row. and that is, you know, some people think despite the fact that it is connected to ciudad juarez at the u.s.-mexico border and the fact that it has a large number of immigrants in the community. i say and the people in that community agrees is because of the immigrants that participate and contribute to the american dream. and on issues and matters of law enforcement, i tend to defer to the experts, and big city police chiefs and county sheriffs like the sheriff in el paso, texas, say for them to prevent crime and to solve crimes it's necessary to be able to work with everyone in the community without fear that they are going to be enforcing federal law enforcement mandates to the exclusion of the public safety of the people

that i have the honor of representing. and for that reason i urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this proposal, a solution in search of a problem. with that, madam speake i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds to say yet again nothing in this bill requires any officer to ask any question of any vtims of crime about their immigration status. . all it does is probit cities and counties to offer information stat bus their individus. at this time it's my pleasure to yield got minutes to the gentlewoman from tenssee, mrs. blackburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recoized for two minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman from virginia for hisork. so constently w