[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 26 (Friday, February 12, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H789-H802]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMMON SENSE NUTRITION DISCLOSURE ACT OF 2015
General Leave
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2017, including an
exchange of letters between the Committees on Energy and Commerce and
the Judiciary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wilson of South Carolina). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 611 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2017.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 0954
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2017) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
improve and clarify certain disclosure requirements for restaurants and
similar retail food establishments, and to amend the authority to bring
proceedings under section 403A, with Mr. Graves of Louisiana in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) and the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2017, the Common
Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act, sponsored by Conference Chair Cathy
McMorris Rodgers and Representative Loretta Sanchez.
This legislation, first and foremost, is about making menu labeling
work for the American people and American businesses. Providing
accurate information to consumers when they are deciding what to order
is at the heart of this bill. This is not about hiding the calorie
information. This bill is about making menu labeling requirements work
for the entire industry.
It seems obvious to me that a one-size-fits-all solution will not
work for all restaurant chains; yet FDA's menu labeling recommendation
does just that, and its burdensome rules have raised alarm bells with
businesses across the country.
Convenience stores, grocery stores, take-out restaurants, pizza
restaurants, movie theaters, amusement parks, bowling alleys, and chain
restaurants, I think it is fair to say, can be very different.
Expecting these distinct businesses to all comply with the same
standards is simply not reasonable; in fact, it is ridiculous.
Furthermore, FDA's existing regulations force businesses to provide
information that is often useless to the consumer. The Common Sense
Nutrition Disclosure Act provides calorie information to the customers
when it would actually be helpful before they order. Knowing how many
calories are in your meal at the point of purchase is not going to help
anyone. Having calorie information when you place your order will help
customers make healthier decisions.
The current FDA menu labeling rules also will expose restaurants and
retailers to harsh penalties. This bill makes sure that employees don't
get penalized for an inadvertent error. This bill would also help
protect businesses from frivolous lawsuits.
Our bill also addresses other impractical, unworkable aspects of
FDA's regulation. For example, flyers and advertisements were never
meant to be considered menus; yet, through guidance, the FDA confirmed
that they consider flyers and advertisements menus. FDA had their
chance to make corrections and they did not. This must be fixed, and
our bill does just that.
This bill came through our Subcommittee on Health with a voice vote.
In full committee, it passed with a bipartisan vote of 36-12-1. I look
forward to passing H.R. 2017 through the House with an even stronger
bipartisan vote. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2017.
I reserve the balance of my time.
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, February 10, 2016.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Upton: I am writing with respect to H.R.
2017, the ``Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act of 2015,''
which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
As you know, H.R. 2017 contains provisions that fall within
the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. As
a result of your having consulted with the Committee and in
order to expedite the House's consideration of H.R. 2017, the
Committee on the Judiciary will not assert its jurisdictional
claim over this bill by seeking a sequential referral.
However, this is conditional on our mutual understanding and
agreement that doing so will in no way diminish or alter the
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary with respect
to the appointment of conferees or to any future
jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in
the bill or similar legislation.
I would appreciate a response to this letter confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 2017, and would ask
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be
included in the Congressional Record during Floor
consideration of H.R. 2017.
Sincerely,
Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, February 11, 2016.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Goodlatte: Thank you for your letter
regarding H.R. 2017, the ``Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure
Act of 2015.''
I appreciate your willingness to forgo seeking a sequential
referral of the bill, and I agree that your decision will in
no way diminish or alter the jurisdiction of the Committee on
the Judiciary with respect to the appointment of conferees or
to any future jurisdictional claim over the subject matters
contained in the bill or similar legislation.
I will include a copy of your letter and this response in
the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 2017 on
the House floor.
Sincerely,
Fred Upton,
Chairman.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2017, the so-called
Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act.
Far from common sense, this unnecessary legislation would deny
consumers critical information about the food that we eat.
I began my career a long time ago as a consumer advocate, joining
together with a small group of housewives to get retailers to put
expiration dates on the products they sell. This was way back in 1970,
when every single item in the grocery store was code dated. Now
expiration dates are on nearly every single product because this change
was good not only for consumers, but it was good for the retailers.
They were able to control their inventory much better--less waste
because dates are on the food. We can also control our refrigerators a
little bit better as well.
{time} 1000
Consumers can make better decisions with better information, and
retailers can better control their inventory. Similarly, I believe menu
labeling would be helpful to both consumers and retail food
establishments, as more and more people are asking for this information
and making smart decisions.
At a time when over 78 million adult Americans are obese and the
estimated cost of obesity in the United States is $147 billion a year,
we should be embracing efforts to reduce this enormous cost to our
healthcare system.
In fact, a recent Harvard study found restaurant menu calorie
labeling could save over $4.6 billion in healthcare costs over 10
years. That is not chump change.
Countless consumer and public health organizations oppose H.R. 2017.
That includes the American Diabetes Association, the American Cancer
Society, the American Heart Association, the American Public Health
Association, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
Supporters claim that menu labeling requirements would be too
difficult to implement. That is what I heard from my colleague. But we
know this isn't
[[Page H790]]
true. Why? Because California, New York City, the State of Vermont, and
several counties around the country have successfully implemented menu
labeling.
Only chain restaurants with 20 or more locations operating under the
same name must post calorie information. So this is not about small
businesses must post calorie information. Many of these chains have
already had to comply with menu labeling in the places where it is
currently required.
In addition, the National Restaurant Association has long supported
menu labeling, and consumers find this to be an asset. Claims that
implementation of menu labeling has been rushed or has not allowed
industry to weigh in are simply false.
It has been 6 years since the law first passed, giving industry
plenty of time to weigh in with the FDA and implement this law. The FDA
has already issued a 1-year extension, and the FY16 omnibus delayed
implementation even further.
The FDA has allowed for plenty of industry participation through this
6-year process, and their final regulations provide a great deal of
flexibility.
H.R. 2017 would not only decrease consumer access to calorie
information, but it would allow for inconsistent or confusing menu
information. This legislation, for example, allows food establishments
to simply make up their own serving sizes.
For example, the bill would allow establishments to list the calories
for one chicken wing as opposed to an order of chicken wings and
wouldn't require the total number of calories to be listed.
We have also heard that many establishments, especially chain pizza
restaurants, claim that menu labeling would be too difficult for them
to account for all the variations in their menu offerings.
But let's be clear. Pizza chains only need to post calories for the
standard menu items they list on their menu boards, not every possible
pizza combination. So clearly, California, Vermont, and the City of New
York have figured it out.
I also took it upon myself to come up with an easy template for pizza
restaurants to use and that is free of charge. I am not going to charge
them. It shows how easy it is for them to clearly display the calorie
information and account for the different pizza options. You can see
right here.
So we have one slice of cheese pizza. I just made up these calories.
I think they are way too low. But let's say one slice of cheese pizza
is 250 calories. God bless them if they can do that. So then, for
sausage, you would add calories; mushrooms, you would add calories;
pepperoni, add calories; onion. I think it is rather attractive, easy
to read, and important for consumers.
Pizza is undeniably one of the most common menu items in America. On
any given day, one out of every eight Americans eats pizza--one out of
eight. The United States spends $37 billion a year on pizza, which
accounts for one-third of the global pizza market.
H.R. 2017 still requires chain pizza restaurants to calculate the
calories for their menu items; so, clearly, it can't be that difficult
to come up with this information.
Instead, this bill would allow them to present calorie information in
a deceptive manner and restrict customer access to this information,
depending on where they place an order.
Given how often pizza is consumed, it is critical that consumers have
access to accurate calorie information at all points of sale.
More and more, people are planning their caloric intake and making
healthier decisions for themselves. We should be encouraging this and
providing consumers with the information they need to make smart
decisions about their health.
So I encourage my colleagues to oppose this unnecessary bill that
only serves to harm and confuse consumers.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, first, when we looked at the nice menu
labeling board that was just presented, it shows why H.R. 2017 is
necessary.
Because, if you look at just that board, it was simple, but it fails
to specify the calories listed for each topping or the calories added
to a single slice.
Under FDA regulations and guidance, the menu must specify that the
sausage, mushroom, pepperoni, and onion calories are added to the basic
preparation of slices of pizza with the word ``add'' or ``added''
spelled out.
You can't use the plus symbol, which the FDA has specifically said is
not permitted. It fails to declare calories per slice and per topping
for each size of pizza slice.
The FDA regulations require that calories be declared for each size
of pizza slice and for each topping as applied to each size. So it
shows why we need to move forward. It also doesn't say that 2,000
calories a day is used for general nutrition advice, but calorie needs
vary.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Upton), my good friend and the chairman of the full committee.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this bill
H.R. 2017, the Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act.
Simply put, this is a bipartisan bill that would impose common sense
where it is sorely needed: the final food labeling rule issued by this
administration.
We have a classic example of the administration overreaching with a
top-down, big government approach. Its impact is wide ranging and will
negatively impact your pizza places, convenience stores, grocery
stores, amusement parks, movie theaters, and ice cream stores, you name
it.
The administration's own estimates state that this regulation could
cost American businesses as much as $1 billion to comply and 500,000
hours of paperwork, all on small businesses. That is a huge chunk of
time and money that would be better spent hiring more folks who are
creating improved experiences for customers.
Michigan's own Domino's pizza illustrates just how this rule simply
doesn't work. They have literally hundreds and hundreds of different
potential order combinations: large pizzas, small ones, medium, thick,
thin, and crispy.
Right now they have an online calculator that, in fact, will
determine nutritional information so that, when you order from your
computer or your app, you can see the precise nutrition information on
that pizza.
When 91 percent of orders are placed online, it doesn't make much
sense for Domino's to have an in-store menu board that won't provide
precise nutrition information for customers on literally hundreds of
different choices. Yet, that is what the final food labeling rule would
require.
We live in an innovative world, with businesses like Seamless and
Uber Eats that bring all kinds of food with the click of a button to
consumers' doorsteps. The menu board won't be impactful and is not the
solution to menu labeling.
The Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act prevents these onerous
burdens and puts in place a framework that actually works for consumers
and businesses.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Michigan an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank, in particular, Cathy
McMorris Rodgers and Loretta Sanchez for their bipartisan work to
advance a workable, pragmatic solution that focuses on consumers and
small businesses.
As was noted, it did pass in our committee 36-12 with one voting
present. I look forward to an even stronger bipartisan vote today.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman.
I also thank my good friend. I will move as quickly as I possibly can.
Mr. Chairman, these legislative issues are important to us, and we
realize that there is a difference of opinion. So I don't come to the
floor harking with great adversity, but I do come with a reasonable
response to my opposition to H.R. 2017 in terms of its overall impact.
So I would like to say that it is overly broad in its approach to
address narrower concerns from the pizza industry
[[Page H791]]
and other food establishments that are better resolved through
guidance.
The bill will reduce the likelihood that consumers will receive clear
and consistent calorie information at chain food service
establishments, and the bill weakens an important tool intended to help
Americans make informed food choices at a time when obesity and other
nutrition-related health problems are at crisis.
Our constituents have gotten used to seeing the calorie content. They
look for it. They want transparency. Obviously, Americans eat less than
the recommended amounts of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, dairy
products, and oil. Although we are not the Big Brother, we have to
create opportunities for such.
I live in communities where there are food deserts. More than 23
million Americans, including 6.5 million children, live in food
deserts, areas that are more than a mile away from a supermarket.
In 2008, an estimated 49.1 million people, including 16.7 million
children, experienced food insecurity--limited availability to safe and
nutritionally adequate foods--multiple times throughout the year. So
anytime there can be an increased knowledge about the nutrition of a
food product, that is crucial.
In addition, as the co-chair and founder of the Congressional
Children's Caucus, I work on the issues of childhood obesity.
Data from 2009 to 2010 indicates that over 78 million U.S. adults and
about 12.5 million--16.9 percent--children and adolescents are obese.
We need to help those individuals both in terms of their own confidence
about themselves, but to eat healthy.
So I rise today to oppose this legislation because I believe we can
find a better place of guidance.
I include in the Record a letter, Mr. Chairman, from the National
Restaurant Association, which says: ``We are writing to inform you of
our opposition to H.R. 2017. This legislation would create an unfair
advantage between competitors by specifically carving out segments of
the food service marketplace from the federal requirement. . . . ''
National Restaurant Association,
Washington, DC, April 28, 2015.
Dear Representative: We are writing to inform you of our
opposition to H.R. 2017. This legislation would create an
unfair advantage between competitors by specifically carving
out segments of the food service marketplace from the federal
requirement to provide uniform nutrition information. We urge
you to treat establishments selling restaurant type food
equitably. Congress should not provide a competitive
advantage for one segment of an industry over another.
H.R. 2017 would broadly exempt thousands of chain grocery
and convenience stores from providing uniform nutrition
information on restaurant type food to customers
notwithstanding that each day thousands of customers purchase
such meals at these establishments. Such establishments each
made strategic decisions to compete directly with their local
restaurants. While we welcome their competition, there is no
justifiable reason why they should not be held to the same
rules as those with whom they have chosen to compete. While
we recognize the need expressed by supporters of H.R. 2017 to
have appropriate time for menu-labeling implementation, H.R.
2017 would outright exempt entities from providing nutrition
information, create an uneven playing field, and cast
different requirements amongst competitors.
The food service industry is a broad but competitive
industry that is ever expanding in areas that have not
traditionally provided restaurant meals. For example, today
there are 54,000 grocery stores and 59,000 convenience stores
that offer freshly prepared food and beverages, with annual
average foodservice sales of $25 billion dollars. Taken
together, these two foodservice segments alone represent 12%
of total restaurant and foodservice locations in the U.S. In
fact, in recent years, sales in this broad `retail host'
segment have grown much faster than the restaurant industry
as a whole. Between 2006 and 2011, sales in this sector
jumped 31%, compared to a 16% increase in total restaurant
industry sales.
It is clear that grocery and convenience stores are
expanding into the traditional restaurant space and competing
for the traditional restaurant customer. Just as a restaurant
that decides to sell gas or packaged food would be required
to adhere to the laws governing those products, our
competitors should follow the rules that apply to restaurant
products.
Moreover, as with most federal legislation, we recognized
the need for a small business protection in the menu labeling
requirements. As a result, the law only applies to chains
with 20 or more locations that operate under the same trade
name and offer for sale substantially the same menu items.
Smaller chains and independent operators have the choice to
voluntarily provide menu labeling but they are not required
to do so under the federal law.
Lastly, the menu labeling rule comes at a time when
consumers are demanding more information about the food they
eat. In providing the nutritional content of restaurant
foods, customers will have access to the information they
seek. In fact, this information is being met favorably with
estimates suggesting 76% of consumers want menu labeling.
We appreciate your consideration that establishments
offering restaurant food be treated equally under the law.
Should you have questions on the final requirements around
menu labeling, please feel free to consult our website at
www.restaurant.org/menulabeling. If you have any questions
regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me at the
National Restaurant Association.
Sincerely,
Dan Roehl,
Vice President,
Government Relations.
____
Trust for America's Health,
February 8, 2016.
Dear Lillie: Trust for America's Health (TFAH), a non-
profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting
health for all Americans, urges Representative Jackson Lee to
oppose H.R. 2017, legislation which would weaken and
partially repeal critical Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
menu labeling standards. The bill is scheduled to be
considered by the House later this week.
According to The State of Obesity 2015, obesity remains one
of the biggest threats to the health of our children and
country. Mound 17 percent of children and more than 30
percent of adults are currently considered obese, putting
them at heightened risk for a wide range of health problems
such as heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, stroke,
cancer, asthma and osteoarthritis.
Today, Americans consume roughly one-third of all calories
outside the home. There is no single solution to the obesity
epidemic, but without improved information about the
nutritional content of their food options, millions of
Americans will not have the tools they need to make healthy
choices.
I urge you to oppose this legislation. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact TFAH's Senior
Government Relations Manager Jack Rayburn.
Thank you,
Richard Hamburg,
Interim President and CEO.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. This is the National Restaurant Association.
I received a letter from the Trust for America's Health. They, too,
are a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. They have asked for us to
oppose this, which would weaken and partially repeal critical Food and
Drug Administration, FDA, menu labeling. The bill, as I said, is
scheduled to come, and here we are today.
So my final points are this. If we have a problem, let's try to work
it out, but let's not take a sledgehammer and sledgehammer the
requirements that help Americans have transparent information about
their food.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2017, the ``Common Sense
Nutrition Disclosure Act of 2015,'' which amends the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act to revise the nutritional information that
restaurants and retail food establishments must disclose.
As the founder and chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I
oppose this legislation for the following four reasons:
1. H.R. 2017 is overly broad in its approach to address narrower
concerns from the pizza industry and other food establishments that are
better resolved through guidance;
2. The bill will reduce the likelihood that consumers will receive
clear and consistent calorie information at chain food service
establishments; and
3. The bill weakens an important tool intended to help Americans make
informed food choices at a time when obesity and other nutrition-
related health problems are at crisis levels.
The FDA has been responsive to industry concerns and has already
delayed implementation of menu labeling by two years, which is more
than six years after it was enacted.
Moreover, H.R. 2017 states that its goal is to establish that the
nutrient content disclosure statement on the menu or menu board at
establishments that serve prepared foods must include:
1. the number of calories contained in the whole menu item;
2. the number of servings and number of calories per serving;
3. the number of calories per common unit of the item, such as for a
multi-serving item that is typically divided before presentation to the
consumer; and
4. allow nutritional information may be provided solely by a remote-
access menu (e.g., an Internet menu) for food establishments where the
majority of orders are placed by customers who are off-premises.
[[Page H792]]
nutrition and obesity
Typical American diets exceed the recommended intake levels or limits
in four categories: calories from solid fats and added sugars; refined
grains; sodium; and saturated fat.
Americans eat less than the recommended amounts of vegetables,
fruits, whole grains, dairy products, and oils.
About 90% of Americans eat more sodium than is recommended for a
healthy diet.
Reducing the sodium Americans eat by 1,200mg per day on could save up
to $20 billion a year in medical costs.
Food available for consumption increased in all major food categories
from 1970 to 2008. Average daily calories per person in the marketplace
increased approximately 600 calories.
Since the 1970s, the number of fast food restaurants has more than
doubled.
More than 23 million Americans, including 6.5 million children, live
in food deserts--areas that are more than a mile away from a
supermarket.
In 2008, an estimated 49.1 million people, including 16.7 million
children, experienced food insecurity (limited availability to safe and
nutritionally adequate foods) multiple times throughout the year.
In 2013, residents of the following states were most likely to report
eating at least five servings of vegetables four or more days per week:
Vermont (68.7%), Montana (63.0%) and Washington (61.8%). The least
likely were Oklahoma (52.3%), Louisiana (53.3%) and Missouri (53.8%).
The national average for regular produce consumption is 57.7%.
Empty calories from added sugars and solid fats contribute to 40% of
total daily calories for 2-18 year olds and half of these empty
calories come from six sources: soda, fruit drinks, dairy desserts,
grain desserts, pizza, and whole milk.
US adults consume an average of 3,400 mg/day [of sodium], well above
the current federal guideline of less than 2,300 mg daily.
Food safety awareness goes hand in hand with nutrition education. In
the United States, food-borne agents affect 1 out of 6 individuals and
cause approximately 48 million illnesses, 128,000 hospitalizations, and
3,000 deaths each year.
US per capita consumption of total fat increased from approximately
57 pounds in 1980 to 78 pounds in 2009 with the highest consumption
being 85 pounds in 2005.
The US percentage of food-insecure households, those with limited or
uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable
ways, rose from 11% to 15% between 2005 and 2009.
OBESITY
Data from 2009-2010 indicates that over 78 million U.S. adults and
about 12.5 million (16.9%) children and adolescents are obese.
Recent reports project that by 2030, half of all adults (115 million
adults) in the United States will be obese.
Overweight adolescents have a 70% chance of becoming overweight or
obese adults.
CHILDREN AND OBESITY
For children with disabilities, obesity rates are approximately 38%
higher than for children without disabilities. It gets worse for the
adult population where obesity rates for adults with disabilities are
approximately 57% higher than for adults without disabilities.
In 2011-2012, 8.4% of 2- to 5-year-olds had obesity compared with
17.7% of 6- to 11-year-olds and 20.5% of 12- to 19-year-olds. Childhood
obesity is also more common among certain racial and ethnic groups.
In 2011-2012, the prevalence among children and adolescents was
higher among Hispanics (22.4%) and non-Hispanic blacks (20.2%) than
among non-Hispanic whites (14.1%).
The prevalence of obesity was lower in non-Hispanic Asian youth
(8.6%) than in youth who were non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black or
Hispanic.
Almost 40% of black and Latino youth ages 2 to 19 are overweight or
obese compared with only 29% of white youth.
IMPACT OF BILL ON CHILDREN
Nearly 1 in 3 children, 2-19 years of age living in the United States
is overweight or obese, putting them at risk for serious health
problems.
As members of Congress we should be joining with parents, caregivers,
brothers and sisters, schools, communities and healthcare providers in
making accurate and easily understandable information regarding the
nutrient and calorie content of takeout food transparent to the public.
Our goal should be to work together to create a nation where the
healthy choices in takeout as well as food prepared at homes are
readily available.
Part of that means information on calorie content and nutrition of
food is essential.
Food high calorie content, while low in nutritional value, is a
recipe for obesity.
human and financial costs of obesity
Obesity-related illness, including chronic disease, disability, and
death, is estimated to carry an annual cost of $190.2 billion.
Projections estimate that by 2018, obesity will cost the U.S. 21
percent of our total healthcare costs--$344 billion annually.
Those who are obese have medical costs that are $1,429 more than
those of normal weight on average (roughly 42% higher).
The annual cost of being overweight is $524 for women and $432 for
men; annual costs for being obese are even higher: $4,879 for women and
$2,646 for men.
Obesity is also a growing threat to national security--a surprising
27% of young Americans are too overweight to serve in our military.
Approximately 15,000 potential recruits fail their physicals every year
because they are unfit.
The medical care costs of obesity in the United States are
staggering. In 2008 dollars, these costs totaled about $147 billion.
Hunger hurts everyone, but it is especially devastating to children.
Having enough nutritious, healthy food is critical to a child's
physical and emotional development and their ability to achieve
academically.
Children facing hunger may perform worse in school and struggle with
social and behavioral problems that impact their ability to learn.
16 million children in America face hunger.
In 2014, more than 21.5 million low-income children received free or
reduced-price meals daily through the National School Lunch Program.
84% of client households with children report purchasing the cheapest
food available, even if it wasn't the healthiest option.
H.R. 2017 Removes the Information Needed by Consumers to make Good
Food Choices
TEXAS AND CARRYOUT FOOD LABELING
Nearly 27 million people call the state of Texas home, making it the
second largest and most populous state in the nation.
Unfortunately, Texas ranks first as the most obese state in the
United States for children.
More than 1 in 3 children and adolescents in Texas is obese, putting
them at risk for serious health problems.
The story does not end with these statistics.
An initiative by state school districts in collaboration with the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is working to address childhood obesity
in the state of Texas.
More than 2,100 schools serving over 1.4 million students across the
state of Texas have joined the Alliance's Healthy Schools Program,
creating healthier school environments for children to thrive.
Since 2007, 136 Texas schools have been recognized with National
Healthy Schools Awards for their outstanding efforts.
I must encourage my colleagues to join me in opposition to this
unwise and harmful legislation.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), my good friend.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank my good friend from Kentucky.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2017, the Common Sense
Nutrition Disclosure Act. This bill, as the name suggests, truly is a
commonsense bill. H.R. 2017 would lift many of the burdens on small
businesses and help protect establishments from excessive regulations.
This summer I visited many Florida food producers, distributors, and
restaurants, including one of the local Publix Super Markets, in Land
O' Lakes, Florida, where employees showed me how current policies and
excessive regulations impact their store.
However, it was clear that reasonable regulations are needed. This
bill allows for providing nutritional information to consumers based on
the different ways that foods are prepared and sold across venues and
formats.
Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairwoman McMorris Rodgers for sponsoring the
bill and the committee for their good work. I urge passage of this
great bill, H.R. 2017.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. DeSaulnier).
I am really glad to introduce Mark DeSaulnier, who has experience
with this particular legislation.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong opposition to H.R. 2017. I
do this in the context of my background and my professional life, 40
years in the restaurant business.
I started as a busboy and a dishwasher. I have worked in chain
restaurants and fast-food restaurants and owned multiple fine-dining
restaurants in the Bay Area and have done consulting to restaurants
throughout California.
{time} 1015
I was an author along with a colleague in the State legislature. At
that time, the first statewide menu labeling legislation in the country
was in California. My colleague had been on the
[[Page H793]]
L.A. City Council, I had been in local government in the bay area, and
we had started in local government doing this.
We took 2 years, from 2006 to 2008, to work with a Republican
administration and a Democratic leadership of both Houses in
California. I worked with the California Restaurant Association, which
I was a longtime member of.
At the end of the day, we accommodated all people's interests,
including the stakeholders in the pizza industry. What we had was a
remarkable piece of legislation that is helping to address what the
Center for Disease Control called over 10 years ago a national epidemic
in this country, a national epidemic of obesity, particularly for young
people, for young Americans, of which as many as two-thirds of them
deal with obesity every day, or overweight, and obesity-related
diseases, like diabetes type 2, has expanded over 300 percent since
1971, when many of us were younger. This is a national epidemic.
When we were doing the legislation in California, we considered cost
benefits. We worked, as I said before, with the Restaurant Association.
As somebody who spent 4 years in the Restaurant Association--and they
were independent restaurants so I understand that this would not apply
directly--but many of those restaurants already started on their own,
and the consumers responded to it in the context of this national
crisis.
Here is a piece of legislation that the administration is continuing
to work in full faith with the stakeholders on. Why not let them
continue. It is a major piece of prevention. It is a major piece of
public health.
I have been in the restaurant business long enough to remember when
Mothers Against Drunk Driving brought their issues to the restaurant
industry and said that we should do something about the epidemic of
drunk driving deaths. We did. The restaurant industry put up a struggle
and thought it would be the end of it.
I have been in the business long enough to remember secondhand smoke,
where similarly people said: This will be the end of us.
I know how hard it is to keep a restaurant open. It is one of the
most daunting things you can do in life. I know the importance of them
in a community where more and more Americans with two-income households
rely on restaurants and dining out to provide for their families.
Therein lies part of our crisis.
The restaurant business responded when we had drunk driving issues.
It responded again in secondhand smoke. Many of us can remember when
you would walk into a restaurant and you were engulfed in smoke. We
know what the public health dangers of that were. We know how we have
reduced that exposure and led the world.
Here is another occasion where the United States--and I know in
California, we led the world, and it is working. I will say that you
can remedy, as somebody with my background, the conflicts between
public health.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Curbelo of Florida). The time of the gentleman
has expired.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I yield the gentleman from California an additional 1
minute.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. I urge my colleagues--given the experience I have had
and others, and the urgency of the issue when it comes to public health
and the future of this country--to vote ``no.''
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois has 16\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), my good friend.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue
that I care a lot about. Diabetes runs in my family, and I am talking
generations worth.
One of the ways that you combat diabetes is through nutrition and
through exercise. I watch everything that I eat. I am very grateful
that when I go to a restaurant, they put the calorie count on the
different pieces on the menu. I am very grateful that when I go into a
7-Eleven or some other type of convenience store, that there is calorie
count and serving size on everything that I buy there. This is very
important to me.
But at the same time, I have been a small business woman, I have had
a small business, and I know how difficult it is to make payroll, to be
a small business trying to make a profit. I think that this particular
regulation, not law, because when we passed the Affordable Care Act we
said: Let's help people make good nutrition decisions, and I agree with
that. But then we had a regulatory agency that made these regulations
that just don't make sense. That is what this bill is about.
Ms. Jackson Lee, one of my colleagues, said: This is easy, let's just
work it out. But the reality is we have been at this for almost 2 or 3
years, and we have not been able to work it out at the table. This is
very, very important.
There was just a letter of opposition put into the Record from the
National Restaurant Association. Yes, early on, to this bill, they were
opposed. But the thing they were opposed to was the 50 percent rule,
and we have taken that out of this.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. GUTHRIE. I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 30
seconds.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I would like to say that the
Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act of 2015 aims to fix these
problems and to help small businesses meet the intention of the law.
I think it is very unfair if you walk into a 7-Eleven and because
something is taken out of its package and is put in a toaster oven
that, all of a sudden, another place has to put the calories.
So I would ask my colleagues, please, let's do the right thing. Let's
help consumers be smart about what they are eating, and let's let
businesses go about their business.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the wonderful consumer advocate who has
been fighting issues on nutrition and consumer information for such a
long time and who is so knowledgeable about the importance of
information for consumers.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2017, the
Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act of 2015.
As many of you know, I have been a longstanding champion of menu
labeling, and I have fought to secure its inclusion in the Affordable
Care Act. In fact, I was the original author of the House menu labeling
bill.
When the Congress passed standardized menu labeling in 2010, what was
the goal? To arm Americans with the right-to-know information they need
to make informed nutritional decisions for themselves and for their
families.
The language was built on consensus and compromise and worked out
between a wide variety of interests, including many industry partners.
I can find you the quotes from the National Restaurant Association
where we stood together to make the announcement to put calories up on
menu boards where people could see them and make the decision about
what they were going to purchase at the point of purchase.
Now certain sectors of the industry want to tear down the progress
that we have made. This bill would weaken and repeal a crucial step to
combat the obesity epidemic in the United States. This bill increases
consumer confusion and allows restaurants to list deceptive portion
sizes, listing an entree as multiple servings, even though these items
are often consumed by one person.
For example, a restaurant could list the caloric content of one
chicken wing, deciding that one chicken wing is a serving size. But
people do not eat just one chicken wing. Under the proposed bill, a
restaurant would not be obligated to inform a consumer that there are
12 chicken wings in an order, which can lead to consumers making
misinformed decisions based on misleading information, consuming far
more calories than they ever realized.
This bill would also deny consumers the right to nutritional
information at that point of purchase, even if 49 percent of orders are
placed from in-store menus. Food establishments, what they would like
to do is to bury menu labeling online.
Multiple studies have shown that providing calorie menu information
[[Page H794]]
can help Americans make lower calorie choices. But they cannot do this
if they do not have the information they need.
It also weakens enforcement, consumer protection, and it would
completely remove an establishment's incentive to comply with menu
labeling requirements.
It also removes the ability of individuals to hold retail
establishments accountable for violations to the food labeling law.
Many public interest health organizations are concerned about the
ability of citizens to take action on noncompliance to menu labeling
standards. Given that the Food and Drug Administration is chronically
underfunded, this would be a serious setback.
We live in a country where obesity is an epidemic. In March 2015,
sales at restaurants and bars surpassed spending at grocery stores for
the first time ever. On an average day, one out of three Americans eat
at a fast food restaurant. Americans are eating nearly half of their
meals and snacks outside the home. Nutritional information must be made
readily available where the consumer is at a point of purchase.
Children are especially at risk. Today, more than a third of children
and adolescents are overweight and obese. Children eat almost twice as
many calories at a restaurant than they do at home. The impact on our
kids alone should be reason enough to oppose a measure that undermines
the consumer's ability to make an informed nutrition choice at
mealtime.
The good news is that menu labeling works. A 2015 study at Harvard
found that menu labeling could save $4.6 billion in healthcare costs
over 10 years. It is a popular concept. A national poll found that 80
percent of Americans support menu labeling in chain restaurants. Over
100 nutrition and health organizations support menu labeling, along
with trade associations, like the National Restaurant Association,
chain restaurants such as McDonald's, Chili's, and IHOP.
The existing law is flexible. Restaurants with less than 20
locations--a mom and pop small businesses--are excluded. Your local
grocery store is excluded.
It has been 6 years since the original labeling law passed. There has
been a 2-year delay in its full implementation.
The Food and Drug Administration has actually gone almost door to
door to work with the industry to address their concerns. We should let
them work through this process rather than complicating it with this
legislation, which is just industry's answer to gutting the
legislation.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I yield the gentlewoman from Connecticut as much time
as she may consume.
Ms. DeLAURO. Let them work through the process. We would be undoing
years of meaningful, impactful work on menu labeling with a single
stroke.
This is a special interest-driven bill. No one is suggesting that
every permutation of a meal has to be changed and listed on a menu
board. That is false. That is misrepresentation. You take the standard
menu and you put that up there, and the same is true of pizza places,
the same is true of the deli counter, and a convenience store. Do not
let an industry that doesn't want to provide information to the
American people about what they are eating and what the calorie content
is--you know, when we first started this, we talked about calories and
sodium and a whole bunch of other things, but it was by working with
the industry that I did at that time, that said: No, let's just put
calories up there. That is reasonable. We don't have to go further than
that. They stood side by side with me and we went to restaurants where
we saw what the calorie count was on the label, and they were perfectly
happy with it.
Subsections of this industry have refused to do what the broad-based
industry has wanted to do.
This is industry-driven. It is not the answer. It would undo over 5
years of progress on menu labeling. It hurts the American public. It
hurts our children. And I urge all of my colleagues to oppose it.
{time} 1030
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Blum).
Mr. BLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2017, the
Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act.
This commonsense, bipartisan legislation would change the FDA's
burdensome and impractical labeling of prepared food items at grocery
stores and at convenience stores into a more workable and efficient
solution that keeps food costs down for consumers.
In the First District of Iowa, many of my constituents stop by local
businesses, like Casey's General Store or the Hy-Vee supermarket, to
get a hot breakfast or to pick up a convenient meal over their lunch
breaks. These stores often use local ingredients and offer specialty
items, which means their recipes and nutritional information and
content can vary.
Under the FDA's regulation, Casey's, Hy-Vee, and any other business
that is impacted by the rule could be penalized for failing to label
accurately a sandwich that happens to get an extra squirt of mayo or a
salad that a customer chooses to top off with bacon bits. H.R. 2017
would fix these issues by providing a menu board that lists nutritional
information for prepared items instead of forcing these businesses to
pass excessive labeling compliance costs on to their customers.
Furthermore, as a career small-business man, I know how tough it is
to compete with massive corporations, and excessive red tape like this
makes it even harder. While large corporations can often afford the
added costs, it is the smaller businesses that get squeezed out of the
marketplace by the extra burden of ever-increasing red tape.
Mr. Chairman, the FDA's regulation is just another example of
Washington overreach that forces businesses to push costs, with no
added benefit, onto customers.
I am proud to cosponsor this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join
me in voting in favor of H.R. 2017.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Common
Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act.
This bipartisan bill would protect small businesses from overbearing
FDA regulations that harm workers, job creators, our economy, and, oh,
by the way, personal freedom of choice for individual citizens, who, in
most cases, make good decisions and ought to have a choice in America.
The FDA's poorly designed menu labeling requirements do not take into
account the diversity of restaurants and of food products. That is
America. The estimated cost for places like delis, convenience stores,
and pizzerias to comply would be more than $1 billion.
Mr. Chairman, we are here today to offer a practical alternative that
would rein in and clarify the FDA's burdensome, one-size-fits-all
approach. This commonsense bill offers an efficient and, I believe, an
effective solution by giving small businesses greater flexibility to
provide nutrition information in a way that best serves their
customers.
I urge its passage.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The previous speaker said that this is all about choice. I agree with
that. I think it is all about choice and about having the kind of
information to make a proper choice.
Let me just give you an example of a menu from a SUBWAY in Montgomery
County, Maryland.
This is from SUBWAY, which lists the calories in a standardized way,
and that is what the original regulations and law required before there
being this confusing change in the legislation. It reads, for example,
that a SUBWAY Melt is 380 calories and that a Chicken and Bacon Ranch
is 580 calories. Now, one would not necessarily assume that a SUBWAY
Melt, which sounds cheesy and kind of rich, would, actually, have fewer
calories--by 200--than a Chicken and Bacon Ranch. I think it is good
for me and for many consumers to go in and to be able to see that and
know that is going to be the standard way that calories are presented.
This legislation would allow such things as this.
The covered establishments could make their own decisions about what
is
[[Page H795]]
a serving size. It wouldn't be the same from establishment to
establishment. For example, this allows covered establishments to not
list the total number of servings for an item on the menu, like a
platter of a certain appetizer. For example, an advertiser could list
the calories as 400 calories but not disclose that one platter--just
one order--has three servings, for a total of 1,200 calories--400
versus 1,200 calories. This presents real confusion and, I would argue,
misinformation to the consumer.
More and more Americans are eating food outside of the home that is
prepared by restaurants or by chain grocery stores where they have a
section on prepared foods. In order to have complete decisionmaking
power, it is very important that we have the calories that are there
and posted.
Obviously, this is not overburdening, certainly, small businesses,
because this isn't about small businesses. We have the largest State in
the country already having these regulations, operating smoothly. We
have got the second largest city in the country--the city of New York--
and we have the State of Vermont, very different kinds of locations
that are being able to comply with the FDA regulations and the law that
we want to go into effect next year. We do not need H.R. 2017 to
confuse and disarm consumers and not provide them with the information
they need.
I have another menu from Specialty Pizza: build your own pizza. What
it has is a range of calories; so it would not be overburdening for
every single different iteration of a pizza to have all of the
different calories. There are options and there is flexibility under
the legislation. It doesn't need to be changed and undermined by H.R.
2017.
If we are serious about dealing with one of the most important,
expensive, and ubiquitous diseases in the United States of America--
diabetes. One of the greatest problems that we face is obesity in
adults and especially in children--then I think we owe it to our
families to make sure that we do not pass H.R. 2017, a special
interest-driven bill to decrease consumer access to important nutrition
and calorie information.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, let me state what this bill is not. It is not doing away with
the calorie count or the ability for people to understand what calorie
content, or caloric content, is available in each product. I am one who
looks at that. I don't know of anything that has a calorie count on
anything that I have eaten recently that I haven't looked at. I have
checked out the serving sizes so that I know how many chicken wings I
want to order. If I can get the calories per chicken wing, I can make
that determination.
We looked at the menu board that was offered earlier, and it looked
simple, but this is the issue: Even if you put ranges, how do you get
the information in people's hands? I was just at a restaurant, when I
was traveling in my district the other day, that had calories for
different orders. One was from 400 to 800 on one. So what we want to do
is to make it available in a way that is efficient, as most people now
get their information not necessarily on a board where you have to have
big ranges, but specific. For instance, at one pizza restaurant alone,
we had the pizza slice plus a few toppings; but what if you have five
styles of crust, six different cheeses, five sauces, four sizes, and 20
different toppings? If you put all of that together, it comes to about
34 million different combinations, and deviations from the standard
that the FDA has put forward could lead to fines and to criminal
penalties.
What we are looking at, as my friend from California said, are these
rules that are incredibly complex, burdensome, and inflexible. What
this bill does not do is create exemptions or diminish the amount of
information that must be provided by restaurants or retailers. All it
does is allow for some flexibility, and it clarifies the unworkable and
overly complex regulations the FDA finalized in November 2014. A lot of
things that happen here are overly cumbersome and unworkable. We go to
delay, to delay, and we delayed an omnibus, as they said. These are
going to be unworkable 6 months from now and a year from now.
So let's fix it so that our businesses know what to provide without
their having the threat of penalty, because they will know what to
provide, and so that consumers can make choices. I am one, as I said,
who wants that information because I want to be able to make that
choice for myself and for my family.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today takes an important
step in protecting our nation's small businesses from unnecessary costs
and regulatory burdens. The Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act
provides for flexibility for the food service industry to ensure they
can comply with the regulatory requirements as issued by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA).
Sadly, the rule issued by the FDA was declared to be the third most
burdensome regulation proposed in 2010 and could cost American
businesses $1 billion to comply and 500,000 hours of paperwork. The
400-page rule establishes one-size-fits-all nutritional disclosure
requirements.
H.R. 2017 is necessary to help small business owners, franchisees, as
well as consumers who want easy access to accurate nutrition
information in a common sense way.
Without HR. 2017, covered establishments, including pizza delivery
businesses and grocery stores, would be subject to a cumbersome, rigid
and costly regulatory compliance process to avoid violations and
possible criminal prosecution.
H.R. 2017 improves and clarifies the final rule promulgated by the
FDA implementing the menu-labeling requirements of Section 4205 of the
Affordable Care Act (ACA). The concern is that without the relief and
flexibility provided for in H.R. 2017, the final rule goes well beyond
what was intended by the ACA.
The obligations are imposed not only on chain restaurants--including
delivery establishments, but also on any other chain retailer that
sells non-packaged food, such as grocery store salad bars, and
convenience stores' meals to go.
Small businesses that are not chain restaurants but are indeed
subject to the rule will face a dramatic increase in regulatory
compliance costs. Consumers most assuredly will see higher food costs,
and perhaps fewer choices. Some retailers may find it more advantageous
to stop selling restaurant-type food altogether. So instead of
purchasing fresh sandwiches, consumers may have to buy pre-packaged
sandwiches since those will not require the retailer to comply with
labeling requirements.
Fixing this burdensome regulation will benefit tens of thousands of
restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores and small business
owners that otherwise would be burdened with regulations that are
costly and hurt job creation.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides clarity, flexibility, and
certainty for these companies, and also ensures consumers have access
to the information they need to make informed nutritional decisions. I
urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2017.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). All time for general debate has
expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed
in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
shall be considered as read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 2017
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Common Sense Nutrition
Disclosure Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. AMENDING CERTAIN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR
RESTAURANTS AND SIMILAR RETAIL FOOD
ESTABLISHMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 403(q)(5)(H) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343(q)(5)(H)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (ii)--
(A) in item (I)(aa), by striking ``the number of calories
contained in the standard menu item, as usually prepared and
offered for sale'' and inserting ``the number of calories
contained in the whole standard menu item, or the number of
servings (as reasonably determined by the restaurant or
similar retail food establishment) and number of calories per
serving, or the number of calories per the common unit
division of the standard menu item, such as for a
multiserving item that is typically divided before
presentation to the consumer'';
(B) in item (II)(aa), by striking ``the number of calories
contained in the standard menu item,
[[Page H796]]
as usually prepared and offered for sale'' and inserting
``the number of calories contained in the whole standard menu
item, or the number of servings (as reasonably determined by
the restaurant or similar retail food establishment) and
number of calories per serving, or the number of calories per
the common unit division of the standard menu item, such as
for a multiserving item that is typically divided before
presentation to the consumer''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following flush text:
``In the case of restaurants or similar retail food
establishments where the majority of orders are placed by
customers who are off-premises at the time such order is
placed, the information required to be disclosed under items
(I) through (IV) may be provided by a remote-access menu
(such as a menu available on the Internet) as the sole method
of disclosure instead of on-premises writings.'';
(2) in subclause (iii)--
(A) by inserting ``either'' after ``a restaurant or similar
retail food establishment shall''; and
(B) by inserting ``or comply with subclause (ii)'' after
``per serving'';
(3) in subclause (iv)--
(A) by striking ``For the purposes of this clause'' and
inserting the following:
``(I) In general.--For the purposes of this clause'';
(B) by striking ``and other reasonable means'' and
inserting ``or other reasonable means''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(II) Reasonable basis defined.--For the purposes of this
subclause, with respect to a nutrient disclosure, the term
`reasonable basis' means that the nutrient disclosure is
within acceptable allowances for variation in nutrient
content. Such acceptable allowances shall include allowances
for variation in serving size, inadvertent human error in
formulation or preparation of menu items, and variations in
ingredients.'';
(4) by amending subclause (v) to read as follows:
``(v) Menu variability and combination meals.--The
Secretary shall establish by regulation standards for
determining and disclosing the nutrient content for standard
menu items that come in different flavors, varieties, or
combinations, but which are listed as a single menu item,
such as soft drinks, ice cream, pizza, doughnuts, or
children's combination meals. Such standards shall allow a
restaurant or similar retail food establishment to choose
whether to determine and disclose such content for the whole
standard menu item, for a serving or common unit division
thereof, or for a serving or common unit division thereof
accompanied by the number of servings or common unit
divisions in the whole standard menu item. Such standards
shall allow a restaurant or similar retail food establishment
to determine and disclose such content by using any of the
following methods: ranges, averages, individual labeling of
flavors or components, or labeling of one preset standard
build. In addition to such methods, the Secretary may allow
the use of other methods, to be determined by the Secretary,
for which there is a reasonable basis (as such term is
defined in subclause (iv)(II)).'';
(5) in subclause (x)--
(A) by striking ``Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this clause, the Secretary shall promulgate
proposed regulations to carry out this clause.'' and
inserting ``Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment
of the Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act of 2015, the
Secretary shall issue proposed regulations to carry out this
clause, as amended by such Act. Any final regulations that
are promulgated pursuant to the Common Sense Nutrition
Disclosure Act of 2015, and any final regulations that were
promulgated pursuant to this clause before the date of
enactment of the Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act of
2015, shall not take effect earlier than 2 years after the
promulgation of final regulations pursuant to the Common
Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act of 2015.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(IV) Certifications.--Restaurants and similar retail food
establishments shall not be required to provide
certifications or similar signed statements relating to
compliance with the requirements of this clause.'';
(6) by amending subclause (xi) to read as follows:
``(xi) Definitions.--In this clause:
``(I) Menu; menu board.--The term `menu' or `menu board'
means the one listing of items which the restaurant or
similar retail food establishment reasonably believes to be,
and designates as, the primary listing from which customers
make a selection in placing an order. The ability to order
from an advertisement, coupon, flyer, window display,
packaging, social media, or other similar writing does not
make the writing a menu or menu board.
``(II) Preset standard build.--The term `preset standard
build' means the finished version of a menu item most
commonly ordered by consumers.
``(III) Standard menu item.--The term `standard menu item'
means a food item of the type described in subclause (i) or
(ii) of subparagraph (5)(A) with the same recipe prepared in
substantially the same way with substantially the same food
components that--
``(aa) is routinely included on a menu or menu board or
routinely offered as a self-service food or food on display
at 20 or more locations doing business under the same name;
and
``(bb) is not a food referenced in subclause (vii).''; and
(7) by adding at the end the following:
``(xii) Opportunity to correct violations.--Any restaurant
or similar retail food establishment that the Secretary
determines is in violation of this clause shall have 90 days
after receiving notification of the violation to correct the
violation. The Secretary shall take no enforcement action,
including the issuance of any public letter, for violations
that are corrected within such 90-day period.''.
(b) National Uniformity.--Section 403A(b) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343-1(b)) is amended
by striking ``may exempt from subsection (a)'' and inserting
``may exempt from subsection (a) (other than subsection
(a)(4))''.
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM
NONCOMPLIANCE WITH NUTRITION LABELING
REQUIREMENTS.
Section 403(q)(5)(H) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343(q)(5)(H)), as amended by section
2, is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(xiii) Limitation on liability.--A restaurant or similar
retail food establishment shall not be liable in any civil
action in Federal or State court (other than an action
brought by the United States or a State) for any claims
arising out of an alleged violation of--
``(I) this clause; or
``(II) any State law permitted under section 403A(a)(4).''.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in House
Report 114-421. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered 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.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. McMorris Rodgers
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 114-421.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
On page 5, strike lines 15 through 24 and insert the
following:
``(II) Permissible variation.--If the restaurant or similar
food establishment uses such means as the basis for its
nutrient content disclosures, such disclosures shall be
treated as having a reasonable basis even if such disclosures
vary from actual nutrient content, including but not limited
to variations in serving size, inadvertent human error in
formulation or preparation of menu items, variations in
ingredients, or other reasonable variations.'';
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 611, the gentlewoman
from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering is a
clarifying amendment.
Current law requires that restaurants and food establishments have a
reasonable basis for how they determine the calorie count they
ultimately disclose to their customers. The FDA's final rule does not
accommodate for the variability that is involved when preparing food.
Especially when chefs are preparing fresh, custom order items, mistakes
and variations are inevitable. For example, if someone is making a
pizza and is adding a handful of every topping, chefs' hands are
different sizes, so people may end up with more or less of each
ingredient.
The amendment will provide the added flexibility that we want for
food establishments to determine accurate nutrient disclosures by
allowing for permissible variations, like inadvertent human error,
while also ensuring that businesses and their employees will not be
criminally penalized.
Now I want to address some of the concerns that were raised by my
colleagues from across the aisle about the underlying legislation, H.R.
2017.
This bill is not about the merits of calorie counts. This bill does
not remove any requirements for calorie counts on menus. This bill
certainly does not make it more difficult for customers to receive
nutritional information. This bill, at its very core, is about
flexibility. In trying to create a uniform standard, the FDA's rule
attempts to impose a one-size-fits-all approach to an industry as
diverse as its ingredients.
{time} 1045
Every deli and salad bar offering, every possible pizza topping
combination will soon have to be calculated
[[Page H797]]
and their calorie count displayed on physical menus.
This is problematic for two reasons: First, the made-to-order portion
of the food industry offers endless, constantly changing combinations
of ingredients. For some sandwich shops and pizzerias, the possible
variations are tens of millions. The FDA wants these restaurants to put
on paper all of these variations and their calorie counts and have it
publicly displayed in the restaurant. It is unrealistic.
Second, digital and online ordering are many customers' preferred
methods of ordering. Nearly 90 percent of orders in some restaurants
are placed by an individual never stepping foot into the restaurant. So
tell me, why does it make sense to force a restaurant to have a
physical menu with calorie listings when 90 percent of your customers
aren't ever going to see it? How does it make sense to force a customer
to navigate millions of combinations to find the nutritional
information that matches their order?
This legislation provides flexibility in how these restaurants
provide the nutritional information. It makes it easier for customers
to actually see and understand the information because it is displayed
where the customer actually places the order, including by phone,
online, or through mobile apps.
By bringing this rule into the 21st century, customers can trust that
they are getting more reliable information in an easy-to-access,
consumer-friendly way. It also protects small-business owners and their
employees from frivolous lawsuits and criminal actions that could be
honest, inadvertent human error. Accidentally putting too many pickles
on a sandwich and increasing its calorie count should not be a criminal
offense.
This bill is about trusting people through their elected
representatives to make their own decisions and pursue their own
dreams. It is all a part of the choice that we are offering America as
we move forward in 2016.
Before I close, I want to thank my colleagues and the stakeholders,
including the National Restaurant Association, which has withdrawn its
previous opposition to the bill, for their hard work in this bipartisan
effort. Thank you, everyone. It has been a team effort, and I
appreciate your support.
Finally, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this important amendment and ultimately vote ``yes'' for the
bipartisan, commonsense Nutrition Disclosure Act.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record this letter from the National
Grocers Association.
National Grocers Association
Key Vote,
February 9, 2016.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker of the House, The Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Majority Leader, The Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic Leader, The Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Steny Hoyer,
Democratic Whip, The Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan, Leader Pelosi, Leader McCarthy, and
Representative Hoyer: On behalf of the National Grocers
Association (NGA), I am writing to express our support for
H.R. 2017, the Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act of 2015,
which would provide common sense reforms to the Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) final rule for Nutritional Labeling of
Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food
Establishments (FDA-2011-0172). NGA strongly encourages the
House to pass this bill with bipartisan support. We commend
House Leadership for bringing this bill to the Floor and the
champions of the legislation, Congresswomen Cathy McMorris
Rodgers (R-WA) and Loretta Sanchez (D-CA).
NGA is the national trade association representing the
retail and wholesale grocers that comprise the independent
channel of the food distribution industry. An independent
retailer is a privately owned or controlled food retail
company operating a variety of formats. Most independent
operators are serviced by wholesale distributors, while
others may be partially or fully self-distributing. Some
independents are publicly traded, but with controlling shares
held by the family and others are employee owned.
Independents are the true ``entrepreneurs'' of the grocery
industry and dedicated to their customers, associates, and
communities. The independent supermarket channel is
accountable for close to 1% of the nation's overall economy
and is responsible for generating $131 billion in sales,
944,000 jobs, $30 billion in wages, and $27 billion in taxes.
As part of the nutrition labeling provisions contained in
the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the FDA is requiring the
disclosure of caloric information for standard menu items in
restaurants and retail food establishments. The provision
amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to
require restaurants and similar retail food establishments
that are part of a chain operating 20 or more locations and
doing business under the same name to provide nutritional
information for standard menu items, including food on
display and self-service food. The original intent of the
provision contained in the ACA aimed to provide one federal
standard for chain restaurants with highly standardized menus
and menu boards from regulatory confusion created by a
growing list of state and local laws regarding nutrition
information disclosures. Unfortunately, throughout the
rulemaking process the FDA greatly expanded the scope of the
rule, and has now included companies that have highly
specialized menus that vary by location, including
supermarkets.
H.R. 2017 contains important regulatory fixes that would
eliminate confusion and uncertainty in implementation, limit
burdensome regulatory costs and provide flexibility to
community oriented supermarkets, allowing them to tailor
their offerings to the neighborhoods and communities they
serve. Importantly, H.R. 2017 does not exempt any entities,
including supermarkets from the requirements under the law.
Under the FDA rule, independent supermarket operators with
20 or more locations would be required to provide caloric
information throughout the store, including menus, display
cases, booklets, pamphlets or fliers, advertising circulars.
For independent supermarkets that provide extensive fresh and
local options, freshly baked goods, cut fruit, and salad
bars, this creates challenges in terms of how to properly
display this information. H.R. 2017 provides important
flexibility for supermarkets while also ensuring consumers
are provided with the information they desire.
Additionally, the rule does not provide flexibility for
unique, local items that are sold at only one store within a
chain. Many independent grocers take pride in providing fresh
and local items that reflect the communities in which they
operate, often contracting with local businesses in order to
provide one or two items to one location. NGA believes that
this provides a large disincentive for independent
supermarket operators to continue providing localized
options. H.R. 2017 provides flexibility to ensure independent
supermarkets can continue to provide these local, unique
products.
As currently constituted, the final menu labeling rule
creates extensive legal liability issues for independent
supermarket operators. Due to the fact that the menu labeling
rule falls under the FFDCA, failure to comply with the menu
labeling rule in any way carries potential felony penalties,
including the possibility of jail time. Additionally, there
is no grace period or warning system in place for first-time
offenders who may be in violation of the rule due to
inadvertent human error, such as adding an extra slice of ham
to a sandwich, additional pepperoni to a pizza, or simply
placing an item in the ``wrong'' bin before placing it in the
salad bar. H.R. 2017 protects front line employees who make
inadvertent mistakes while also providing establishments with
90 days to take corrective action prior to any enforcement
action. Additionally, businesses are protected from frivolous
lawsuits by prohibiting private rights of action.
NGA strongly supports H.R. 2017, and urges the House to
pass this common sense bill to provide businesses with
regulatory relief from this unworkable rule, while continuing
to ensure that consumers receive the nutritional information
they require from their local independent supermarket. NGA
urges all Representatives to vote in favor of H.R. 2017, and
will consider this a ``key vote'' for our scorecard for the
114th Congress.
Sincerely,
Greg Ferrara,
Senior Vice President, Government Relations and Public
Affairs, National Grocers Association.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered today by Representatives McMorris Rodgers and Cardenas. This
amendment would further undermine consumer confidence in the nutrition
information they receive from restaurants and retail food
establishments. One could call it flexibility, which actually the
current legislation provides; and others, including me, would call it
adding confusion.
[[Page H798]]
Under the Federal menu labeling law, restaurants and retail food
establishments are supposed to have a reasonable basis for determining
calorie and nutrition information for their menu items. This can be
done using a nutrient database, such as USDA's National Nutrient
Database, cookbooks, recipes, nutrition fact labels, or FDA's nutrient
values, among others. Again, the FDA is allowing significant
flexibility, as it is, in how establishments determine this
information. What is most important to the agency is that this
information is accurate and consistent.
Some stakeholders have raised concerns about changes to the nutrition
information based on an employee being too heavyhanded with one
ingredient, like pickles, or perhaps not following the recipe
appropriately. We can all understand that in cooking, this type of
flexibility is needed. FDA's guidance addresses the question of how
closely standard menu items must match the nutrient values, advising
that an establishment ``must take reasonable steps to ensure that how
you prepare your product . . . and how you serve your product are the
same as those used to determine the calorie and nutrient
declarations.''
The McMorris Rodgers-Cardenas amendment further undermines the
``reasonable basis'' standard outlined in H.R. 2017 and in FDA's final
rule by permitting any type of variation for any reason from the
nutrient content disclosed to the actual nutrient content in the
standard menu item. Under this amendment, a restaurant would be able to
change their recipe or how they prepare the food or swap out one
ingredient for another and not have to change the nutrient information
they disclose to account for these variations.
This amendment would also allow for further inconsistencies from
restaurant to restaurant or grocery store to grocery store, as what
might be a permissible variation to one restaurant or one grocery store
may not be permissible to others, again, potentially creating an uneven
playing field among the industry.
It is also important to note that this amendment is inconsistent with
requirements for food labeling under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act. This law requires that food labeling be truthful and not
misleading. If nutrient content disclosures can vary for any reason to
any extent, it would undermine such requirement in the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, a requirement that the food industry has long
had to meet.
As we have said all along, for calorie and nutrition information to
be valuable to consumers, it must be accurate and it must be
consistent. If consumers have no reason to believe that what is
disclosed by a restaurant is accurate, then the disclosure of nutrient
information is rendered meaningless.
I believe FDA's guidance has provided a great deal of flexibility for
how nutrient content should be disclosed, and I know the agency is
committed to working with covered establishments to meet the
requirement of providing accurate, consistent nutrition information in
a way that is feasible for the establishment.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, we are not
getting rid of the ``reasonable basis'' definition, and it does not
allow for any variation. What it says is, where there is inadvertent
human error, there would not be criminal penalties attached to that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, let me make a point. The fact has been
mentioned that people can go online and they can find their information
in that way. Forty-nine percent of orders are placed from in-store
menus. Food establishments can bury anything online. Not everyone has
access to that kind of information. All of the studies have determined
that you make your choice at the point of purchase.
I want to make one other comment because the National Restaurant
Association has been talked about here this morning. Let me just quote
to you Scott DeFife, executive vice president of the National
Restaurant Association, who praised the menu labeling law when the two
of us stood to introduce this legislation 6 years ago. He said why it
was a good thing to do and why he praised it and why the National
Restaurant Association was foursquare for it: ``It sets a clear
national standard across the country.''
They were opposed to this bill. They have been all along. God only
knows what happened in the last 24 or 48 hours to have the National
Restaurant Association, which we stood shoulder to shoulder as we
passed this unbelievably record-breaking bill in order to allow people
to know what they are eating, make their own choice, and to know the
calorie content of food, standard-sized menus. The variations are not
there.
So much misinformation is being peddled on this floor today about
what was a bill to protect the American public.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Washington
will be postponed.
The Chair understands amendment No. 2 will not be offered.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Schrader
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 114-421.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
On page 3, line 24, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
Strike page 4, lines 13 through 22.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 611, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Schrader) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, though I support efforts to clarify rules
as they apply to consumers and small business, this bill, as currently
constructed, creates an inequity in the industry by creating an
exception for many menu labeling rules for certain establishments,
particularly chain pizza shops and other restaurants that could
potentially serve a majority of their customers via remote ordering.
While I have nothing against these businesses, I believe all
restaurants should be treated equally. My amendment merely ensures that
the rules are applied fairly by removing this exemption from the bill.
Under the terms of the bill, most chain restaurants will be required
to list calories on menus at the point of purchase. However, pizza
chains and other establishments where most orders could be placed off-
site, will gain an exemption from this rule. They will not be required
to list calories in their brick-and-mortar locations, even when orders
are placed on-site. This is an inequitable and unfair exemption. While
the vast majority of large chain restaurants will be required to list
the calories in their physical location, these folks will not.
In addition to being unfair to businesses, it is also confusing to
the consumers, whom we are actually trying to protect with this current
bill. They will see calorie information when they place an order at one
restaurant but not necessarily at their local pizza shop.
Opponents of the FDA rule argue the provision is necessary because
pizza restaurants offer many menu items and will not be able to comply
with the rule. This is simply not true. The FDA rule already allows
some variation within menu labels and serving parameters. Generally, I
agree that one size does not fit all when it comes to rulemaking for
businesses, but not in this case.
[[Page H799]]
The National Restaurant Association has indicated that most of their
members are preparing to comply with the menu labeling rules. By all
means, the FDA should assist these restaurants with proper guidance,
but specifying an exemption to one segment of the industry is unfair,
inequitable, and confusing to the consumer.
You might hear opponents of my amendment argue the exemption allows
pizza chains to post calorie information online rather than in their
physical locations. For these Members, I have good news. If my
amendment is adopted, these restaurants will still be able to offer
this information online. In fact, many restaurants already do so, and
those businesses should be commended for their transparency.
Mr. Chairman, we don't need to add unfair and confusing exemptions to
the difficult menu labeling rule we already have. The FDA has indicated
a willingness to work with all affected to provide guidance and clarity
to make compliance easier. This is what our businesses want and need.
I ask my colleagues to join me in assuring fairness for businesses
and clarity for consumers. Please reject this bill--it is an unfair
loophole--and vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I express appreciation to my colleague who
offers this amendment; yet I rise in opposition because, in fact, this
amendment undermines a key provision of the Common Sense--I will repeat
that--the Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act, which is a bipartisan
bill that makes necessary changes to the FDA's menu labeling
regulations.
If, indeed, as has been stated, the FDA is willing to work and be
flexible, we wouldn't need this legislation. It is because they have
shown no real flexibility that this legislation has been offered.
Currently, FDA's menu labeling rules remain costly, ineffective, and
overly burdensome for more than 70,000 restaurants. That is no small
number, Mr. Chairman. For places like pizza shops, where the vast
majority of orders are online--and, yes, they are providing a service,
in most cases, online for their customers--they are voluntarily doing
it and really doing it in a quality way. It is nearly impossible for a
single menu board to be designed in a way that can provide accurate
calorie counts for literally millions of combinations.
The FDA sadly ignores the realities of a diverse market and the
technological advances, innovation, creativity, et cetera, by applying
the same menu standard as a one-size-fits-all, top-down approach, and
that is the reality that is out there with the FDA.
If the House accepts this amendment which strips the remote ordering
provision from the bill, it would greatly harm a bill that seeks to
provide an alternative method for thousands of small businesses to
effectively share nutritional information with consumers.
{time} 1100
The FDA menu requirements simply do not make sense neither for the
restaurant nor for consumers.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, however well meaning,
and support the underlying bipartisan bill that protects small
businesses from overbearing FDA regulations that harm workers, job
creators, consumers, and our economy.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the ranking member.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, there were so many falsehoods, really, in
what my colleague across the aisle said. We have evidence in
California, the city of New York, and Vermont that absolutely
restaurants can comply. It is not about small businesses, about 20 or
more establishments with the same name.
This idea of 50 percent online, this is not the vast majority of
their information online. It is 50 percent. We already know that 49
percent of orders at these establishments are done in person. What
about those people who come in? Are they not entitled to the same thing
that is in other restaurants?
Mr. Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chair, I will respond just briefly to that. It is
truly about making this information meaningful. I watch my wife go
online on her iPhone to check calories all the time. She does it better
than I do. But consumers are moving in that direction.
I have walked through various industries, including Domino's, and
have seen the amazing technological advances that they have that are
putting their consumers first and giving them the ability to know this
in a far more meaningful way than you can do on a menu board. So I
reject that argument, absolutely, in defense of the consumer as well as
the industry.
Mr. Chair, again, I appreciate the concern that my colleague
expresses here; yet, I still stand in very strong support of giving
this opportunity, making sure that FDA is pushed into a flexibility
that I don't believe they are willing to go. This is for the consumer
in the end. This allows advances to move within the market.
I think we will find that all concerns are met and addressed very
well, but we don't put unnecessary burdens upon businesses, job
providers, and, ultimately, on the choice of citizens to have a better
opportunity to make better choices. And, oh, by the way, we reaffirm in
our country the desire to give people personal responsibility and
personal choice together.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from
Michigan's discussion. I want to assure him and everyone out there that
the online ordering is still allowed under my amendment so that those
people who have technology can do so.
But for seniors and some of our less-advantaged folks at home, they
can go to the store and also get that information, which is not allowed
under this current bill, but would be allowed under my amendment.
To the argument that there are too many combinations to be accounted
for, the FDA does allow for flexibility in listing calories for menu
items so they are accessible in different restaurant types. Pizza shops
in locations like New York and Montgomery County, Maryland, already are
complying with rules very similar to these.
Other restaurants have indicated a willingness to comply, including a
national chain that sells coffee, doughnuts, and ice cream: Dunkin'
Donuts, Baskin-Robbins. They serve 15,000 different ways of coffee,
sandwiches 3,000 different ways, ice cream sundaes 80,000 different
ways. They can comply under my amendment. Why can't everyone else?
The NRA itself, the National Restaurant Association, says it is
critical that all businesses that have made the strategic decision to
sell restaurant food play by the same rules.
Furthermore, they talk about that such provisions create inconsistent
and erratic labeling by putting in these exemptions not only among
restaurants, but among restaurants, food service operators, grocery
stores, convenience stores, et cetera.
My amendment removes this unfair exemption. Very simple. Government
should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in private
enterprise. The same rules should apply to everybody.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon will
be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will
[[Page H800]]
now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 114-421 on which
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mrs. McMorris Rodgers of Washington.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Schrader of Oregon.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. McMorris Rodgers
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 309,
noes 100, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 79]
AYES--309
Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amash
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Beatty
Benishek
Bera
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Clyburn
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hahn
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Keating
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Knight
Kuster
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moulton
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nolan
Norcross
Nugent
Nunes
O'Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price (NC)
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Russell
Ryan (OH)
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Takai
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
NOES--100
Bass
Becerra
Beyer
Blumenauer
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Chu, Judy
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis, Danny
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Grayson
Green, Al
Gutierrez
Hastings
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kildee
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Maloney, Carolyn
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Payne
Pelosi
Pingree
Polis
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Serrano
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--23
Amodei
Bonamici
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cohen
DeSantis
Fincher
Grijalva
Heck (NV)
Herrera Beutler
Hudson
Huizenga (MI)
Lieu, Ted
Moore
Pallone
Pocan
Ribble
Smith (WA)
Stivers
Stutzman
Wasserman Schultz
Westmoreland
Zinke
{time} 1128
Mr. VISCLOSKY, Ms. GABBARD, and Mr. HASTINGS changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. TONKO, MASSIE, LIPINSKI, BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico, JOYCE,
Mrs. BEATTY, Messrs. THOMPSON of California, CLYBURN, and RICHMOND
changed their vote from ``no'' to aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Schrader
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Schrader) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 148,
noes 258, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 80]
AYES--148
Adams
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Doggett
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mooney (WV)
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Slaughter
Speier
[[Page H801]]
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
NOES--258
Abraham
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amash
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Cardenas
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Himes
Holding
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Levin
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Takai
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Torres
Trott
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--26
Amodei
Bonamici
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cohen
Fincher
Franks (AZ)
Grijalva
Heck (NV)
Herrera Beutler
Hudson
Huizenga (MI)
Lieu, Ted
Moore
Pallone
Pocan
Rokita
Smith (WA)
Stivers
Stutzman
Turner
Walker
Wasserman Schultz
Westmoreland
Wilson (FL)
Zinke
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1132
Mr. NORCROSS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct my vote from earlier today
on rollcall 80, which was the Schrader amendment to H.R. 2017. While my
vote was recorded as a ``nay'' it was my intention to vote ``yea.''
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Newhouse) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2017) to
amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to improve and clarify
certain disclosure requirements for restaurants and similar retail food
establishments, and to amend the authority to bring proceedings under
section 403A, and, pursuant to House Resolution 611, he reported the
bill back to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment
reported from the Committee of the Whole?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on passage of H.R. 2017 will be followed by a 5-minute vote
on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment
to H.R. 757.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 266,
nays 144, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 81]
YEAS--266
Abraham
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amash
Ashford
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Cardenas
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graham
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Keating
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lynch
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neal
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
O'Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Ruppersberger
Russell
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Takai
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tonko
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Whitfield
Williams
[[Page H802]]
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
NAYS--144
Adams
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kildee
Kilmer
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Massie
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moulton
Nadler
Napolitano
Nolan
Norcross
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Titus
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Wilson (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--22
Amodei
Bonamici
Brady (TX)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cohen
Fincher
Grijalva
Heck (NV)
Herrera Beutler
Hudson
Huizenga (MI)
Lieu, Ted
Moore
Pallone
Pocan
Smith (WA)
Stivers
Stutzman
Wasserman Schultz
Westmoreland
Zinke
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1141
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________