COMMON SENSE NUTRITION DISCLOSURE ACT OF 2015; Congressional Record Vol. 162, No. 26
(House of Representatives - February 12, 2016)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[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.

                          ____________________