“The simple truth is – people have the right to know what is in the food they eat … Parents have the right to know what is in the food their kids are going to be eating … This is not an effort to provide information – it is an effort to deny information to consumers.” – Bernie Sanders
Jeff Kirkpatrick – Ban GMOs Now
Updated: February 2, 2017
On July 7, 2016, S.764 passed the Senate and was sent to the House of Representatives. On July 14, 2016, the GMO (non) labeling bill passed the House. An official White House Petition was started immediately and received more than the minimum 100,000 signatures within days. The bill was presented to President Obama on July 19. On July 29, 2016 he did not veto the bill as requested by the signatories of the petition, but instead, signed it into law. It was designated as Public Law No: 114-216. The final publication is referred to as Public Law No: 114-216-July 29, 2016, National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. The final seven page version of the bill is available HERE.
The first bill referred to as the DARK Act was H.R.4432 and it was sponsored by Rep. Mike Pompeo in 2014. It had the misleading title of “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014.” It did not go beyond a committee in the House; it was never voted on before the year ended and essentially died. In 2015, Mike Pompeo tried again with H.R.1599, also known by the misleading name, the “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015.” It passed the House on July 23, 2015 and was sent to the Senate. It was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. It was read twice in the committee, and never presented for a vote before year ended, which essentially voided the bill.
Some members of Congress began to panic because there was a deadline approaching: On July 1, 2016, a state GMO labeling bill would finally become law. Vermont’s Act 120 would be the first state to enact a GMO labeling bill and it was widely understood that once one state had such a requirement to label GMO foods, companies would label all their products sold nationwide accordingly because it was impractical and cost prohibitive to attempt to label products just for one state. It was simply easier to change the labels on all their products.
There is no doubt that the first attempt to pass the 2014 version of the DARK Act was to preempt state laws like Vermont’s. Subsequent versions of the DARK Act were meant to preempt any state from enacting any similar laws. With the failure of H.R.1599, Senator Pat “Lipstick on a pig”* Roberts introduced S.2609 on March 1, 2016; it was given the lovely name, “An original bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a national voluntary labeling standard for bioengineered foods, and for other purposes.”
[*] Lipstick on a pig refers to attempts to reframe something with a new name or description in order to change a commonly held negative understanding of that thing; Senator Roberts said in 2015: “We don’t call it GMO; we call it biotech for a purpose. We are trying to prove to the American people that their food is safe.” This is a classic case of “Lipstick on a Pig.”
At least S.2609 was clear in its intent; in part it stated “No State … may directly or indirectly establish under any authority or continue in effect as to any food in interstate commerce any requirement for a food that is the subject of the bioengineered food labeling standard under this section that is not identical to that voluntary standard.”
The bill did not pass committee. Instead, the bill known as S.764 eventually made it to the Senate floor for a vote. This version of the DARK Act was sponsored by Senator Pat “Lipstick on a pig” Roberts and Senator Debbie “I believe anything a biotech corporation tells me” Stabenow.
But the GMO labeling bill wasn’t initially referred to as S.764. In fact, S.764 was actually called, “A bill to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes.” This particular bill was originally sponsored by Senator Roger Wicker on March 17, 2015. This bill morphed into the DARK Act Extreme, eventually.
First, however, in the slimiest act of Congress, the text of the GMO labeling bill was placed in a different bill. To intentionally confuse matters, before the Senate voted on S.764, the title of the introduced bill was actually derived from H.R.3134. What was H.R.3134? Why, the “Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015” of course.
Senator Mitch “We’re not trying to trick anybody” McConnell stated that the text of the Defund Planned Parenthood bill was gutted and replaced with the text that would later be known as the GMO labeling bill, or the “National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard.” Why would Mister McConnell use this technique to introduce the bill for a vote on the Senate floor? It is presumed that using this as the vehicle served two functions: first, to confuse consumers who opposed the bill, as well as to mislead members of Congress who opposed it; and second, to ensure that Republicans who were clueless about the contents of the bill itself (it’s well-known that most bills are never read), would automatically vote for any bill that might defund Planned Parenthood.
Essentially, instead of referring to S.764 as a GMO labeling bill, it was thrust onto the senate floor (prior to a vote) under the completely unrelated title, “Defund Planned Parenthood Act.” At that point, the bill had nothing to do with defunding Planned Parenthood at all, and the floor debates on the Senate floor clearly indicate some confusion and objections to the deviousness of this presentation. By the time it was put up for a vote, it still did not have an accurate title because it was then folded into S.764 which was really called, “A bill to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes.”
Finally, after it was signed into law on July 19, 2016, it was given the name, “National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard.” This is how Congress works – at its worst. It is a cesspool of deviousness and deception, encapsulated by corruption and conflicts of interest.
This blog post is primarily a version of the text of the GMO labeling bill as it was published by the U.S. Government Publishing Office on July 15, 2016. It was the GMO Labeling Bill known as S.764 (as of July 14, 2016). The text was copied from HERE. Modifications were not made to the text itself. The basis for publishing this version from the original publication is because the format that the text was originally published in (by the Senate Agricultural Committee1) and subsequent publications were not considered “reader friendly.”
Senator Bernie Sanders outlined several problems with this bill during the Senate floor session on July 7, 2016. The video of his comments to the Senate is below the text of the bill.
A list of how members of the House of Representatives voted is available HERE. Also, see the table below the video.
A list of how members of the Senate voted is available HERE. Also, see the table below the video.
The U.S. Government Publishing Office has also published a pdf version of this text HERE.
That document is also available HERE.
A version of the text as shown below is available in pdf format HERE. In the pdf version, changes were made to the fonts that were used. The majority of the text that is employed is Times New Roman font (primarily at sizes 11 & 12), and Old English Text MT. Quotation marks are consistent with the original text but have been replaced with the version used by the Times New Roman font.
This is the text of the bill:*
[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 764 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]
One Hundred Fourteenth Congress
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen
To reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NATIONAL BIOENGINEERED FOOD DISCLOSURE STANDARD.
The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“Subtitle E–National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard
“SEC. 291. DEFINITIONS.
“In this subtitle:
“(1) Bioengineering.–The term ‘bioengineering’, and any similar term, as determined by the Secretary, with respect to a food, refers to a food–
“(A) that contains genetic material that has been modified through in vitro recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques; and
“(B) for which the modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or found in nature.
“(2) Food.–The term ‘food’ means a food (as defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321)) that is intended for human consumption.
“(3) Secretary.–The term ‘Secretary’ means the Secretary of Agriculture.
“SEC. 292. APPLICABILITY.
“(a) In General.–This subtitle shall apply to any claim in a disclosure that a food bears that indicates that the food is a bioengineered food.
“(b) Application of Definition.–The definition of the term ‘bioengineering’ under section 291 shall not affect any other definition, program, rule, or regulation of the Federal Government.
“(c) Application to Foods.–This subtitle shall apply only to a food subject to–
“(1) the labeling requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.); or
“(2) the labeling requirements under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.) only if–
“(A) the most predominant ingredient of the food would independently be subject to the labeling requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.); or
“(B)(i) the most predominant ingredient of the food is broth, stock, water, or a similar solution; and
“(ii) the second-most predominant ingredient of the food would independently be subject to the labeling requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.).
“SEC. 293. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL BIOENGINEERED FOOD DISCLOSURE STANDARD.
“(a) Establishment of Mandatory Standard.–Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this subtitle, the Secretary shall–
“(1) establish a national mandatory bioengineered food disclosure standard with respect to any bioengineered food and any food that may be bioengineered; and
“(2) establish such requirements and procedures as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the standard.
“(1) In general.–A food may bear a disclosure that the food is bioengineered only in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary in accordance with this subtitle.
“(2) Requirements.–A regulation promulgated by the Secretary in carrying out this subtitle shall–
“(A) prohibit a food derived from an animal to be considered a bioengineered food solely because the animal consumed feed produced from, containing, or consisting of a bioengineered substance;
“(B) determine the amounts of a bioengineered substance that may be present in food, as appropriate, in order for the food to be a bioengineered food;
“(C) establish a process for requesting and granting a determination by the Secretary regarding other factors and conditions under which a food is considered a bioengineered food;
“(D) in accordance with subsection (d), require that the form of a food disclosure under this section be a text, symbol, or electronic or digital link, but excluding Internet website Uniform Resource Locators not embedded in the link, with the disclosure option to be selected by the food manufacturer;
“(E) provide alternative reasonable disclosure options for food contained in small or very small packages;
“(F) in the case of small food manufacturers, provide–
“(i) an implementation date that is not earlier than 1 year after the implementation date for regulations promulgated in accordance with this section; and
“(ii) on-package disclosure options, in addition to those available under subparagraph (D), to be selected by the small food manufacturer, that consist of–
“(I) a telephone number accompanied by appropriate language to indicate that the phone number provides access to additional information; and
“(II) an Internet website maintained by the small food manufacturer in a manner consistent with subsection (d), as appropriate; and
“(i) food served in a restaurant or similar retail food establishment; and
“(ii) very small food manufacturers.
“(3) Safety.–For the purpose of regulations promulgated and food disclosures made pursuant to paragraph (2), a bioengineered food that has successfully completed the pre-market Federal regulatory review process shall not be treated as safer than, or not as safe as, a non-bioengineered counterpart of the food solely because the food is bioengineered or produced or developed with the use of bioengineering.
“(c) Study of Electronic or Digital Link Disclosure.–
“(1) In general.–Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subtitle, the Secretary shall conduct a study to identify potential technological challenges that may impact whether consumers would have access to the bioengineering disclosure through electronic or digital disclosure methods.
“(2) Public comments.–In conducting the study under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall solicit and consider comments from the public.
“(3) Factors.–The study conducted under paragraph (1) shall consider whether consumer access to the bioengineering disclosure through electronic or digital disclosure methods under this subtitle would be affected by the following factors:
“(A) The availability of wireless Internet or cellular networks.
“(B) The availability of landline telephones in stores.
“(C) Challenges facing small retailers and rural retailers.
“(D) The efforts that retailers and other entities have taken to address potential technology and infrastructure challenges.
“(E) The costs and benefits of installing in retail stores electronic or digital link scanners or other evolving technology that provide bioengineering disclosure information.
“(4) Additional disclosure options.–If the Secretary determines in the study conducted under paragraph (1) that consumers, while shopping, would not have sufficient access to the bioengineering disclosure through electronic or digital disclosure methods, the Secretary, after consultation with food retailers and manufacturers, shall provide additional and comparable options to access the bioengineering disclosure.
“(d) Disclosure.–In promulgating regulations under this section, the Secretary shall ensure that–
“(1) on-package language accompanies–
“(A) the electronic or digital link disclosure, indicating that the electronic or digital link will provide access to an Internet website or other landing page by stating only ‘Scan here for more food information’, or equivalent language that only reflects technological changes; or
“(B) any telephone number disclosure, indicating that the telephone number will provide access to additional information by stating only ‘Call for more food information.’;
“(2) the electronic or digital link will provide access to the bioengineering disclosure located, in a consistent and conspicuous manner, on the first product information page that appears for the product on a mobile device, Internet website, or other landing page, which shall exclude marketing and promotional information;
“(3)(A) the electronic or digital link disclosure may not collect, analyze, or sell any personally identifiable information about consumers or the devices of consumers; but
“(B) if information described in subparagraph (A) must be collected to carry out the purposes of this subtitle, that information shall be deleted immediately and not used for any other purpose;
“(4) the electronic or digital link disclosure also includes a telephone number that provides access to the bioengineering disclosure; and
“(5) the electronic or digital link disclosure is of sufficient size to be easily and effectively scanned or read by a digital device.
“(e) State Food Labeling Standards.–Notwithstanding section 295, no State or political subdivision of a State may directly or indirectly establish under any authority or continue in effect as to any food in interstate commerce any requirement relating to the labeling or disclosure of whether a food is bioengineered or was developed or produced using bioengineering for a food that is the subject of the national bioengineered food disclosure standard under this section that is not identical to the mandatory disclosure requirement under that standard.
“(f) Consistency With Certain Laws.–The Secretary shall consider establishing consistency between–
“(1) the national bioengineered food disclosure standard established under this section; and
“(2) the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) and any rules or regulations implementing that Act.
“(1) Prohibited act.–It shall be a prohibited act for a person to knowingly fail to make a disclosure as required under this section.
“(2) Recordkeeping.–Each person subject to the mandatory disclosure requirement under this section shall maintain, and make available to the Secretary, on request, such records as the Secretary determines to be customary or reasonable in the food industry, by regulation, to establish compliance with this section.
“(3) Examination and audit.–
“(A) In general.–The Secretary may conduct an examination, audit, or similar activity with respect to any records required under paragraph (2).
“(B) Notice and hearing.–A person subject to an examination, audit, or similar activity under subparagraph (A) shall be provided notice and opportunity for a hearing on the results of any examination, audit, or similar activity.
“(C) Audit results.–After the notice and opportunity for a hearing under subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall make public the summary of any examination, audit, or similar activity under subparagraph (A).
“(4) Recall authority.–The Secretary shall have no authority to recall any food subject to this subtitle on the basis of whether the food bears a disclosure that the food is bioengineered.
“SEC. 294. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.
“(a) Trade.–This subtitle shall be applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements.
“(b) Other Authorities.–Nothing in this subtitle–
“(1) affects the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services or creates any rights or obligations for any person under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.); or
“(2) affects the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury or creates any rights or obligations for any person under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (27 U.S.C. 201 et seq.).
“(c) Other.–A food may not be considered to be ‘not bioengineered’, ‘non-GMO’, or any other similar claim describing the absence of bioengineering in the food solely because the food is not required to bear a disclosure that the food is bioengineered under this subtitle.
“Subtitle F–Labeling of Certain Food
“SEC. 295. FEDERAL PREEMPTION.
“(a) Definition of Food.–In this subtitle, the term ‘food’ has the meaning given the term in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321).
“(b) Federal Preemption.–No State or a political subdivision of a State may directly or indirectly establish under any authority or continue in effect as to any food or seed in interstate commerce any requirement relating to the labeling of whether a food (including food served in a restaurant or similar establishment) or seed is genetically engineered (which shall include such other similar terms as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture) or was developed or produced using genetic engineering, including any requirement for claims that a food or seed is or contains an ingredient that was developed or produced using genetic engineering.
“SEC. 296. EXCLUSION FROM FEDERAL PREEMPTION.
“Nothing in this subtitle, subtitle E, or any regulation, rule, or requirement promulgated in accordance with this subtitle or subtitle E shall be construed to preempt any remedy created by a State or Federal statutory or common law right.’’.
SEC. 2. ORGANICALLY PRODUCED FOOD.
In the case of a food certified under the national organic program established under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.), the certification shall be considered sufficient to make a claim regarding the absence of bioengineering in the food, such as “not bioengineered’’, “non-GMO’’, or another similar claim.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
A very good summary of the main aspects of this bill was posted by attorney Mark Opanasiuk: “What Should Food Producers, Manufacturers and the Retail Consumers Expect from the New National Mandatory GMO Labeling?” by Mark Opanasiuk, Goosmann Law Firm; July 18, 2016
The definition of “bioengineered food” leaves questions and loopholes
The term “food” used in the new law means a food for human consumption as defined in section 201 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321). The “bioengineering” term with respect to food, refers to a food that contains genetic material modified through rDNA techniques and for which the modification could not otherwise be obtained through conventional breeding or nature. In other words:
- Some processed GMO food which does not contain genetic material would not be covered e.g., vegetable cooking oil from genetically engineered soybean or high-fructose corn syrup.
- The Act regulates only GMO food that contains genetic materials modified by rDNA techniques i.e., when the plant has inserted the DNA of another species.
- The food produced with newest CRISPR/Cas9 techniques (genome editing, gene silencing), probably, does not meet the definition (because it does not use a rDNA technique).
- Pet food, animal feed and other food for non-human consumption is not covered.
On July 1, 2016, the USDA have clarified its interpretation of the bill.* USDA, as the agency that would implement the law, assumes that it has authority to mandate labeling of:
- food from GE corn, soybean, sugar and canola crops used in food today (including refined oils, high fructose corn syrup).
- food that contains genetically modified material from other than rDNA techniques.
Nevertheless, because the definition of bioengineered food leaves so many loopholes, it is possible that the exact interpretation of what requires labeling may be left for courts to ferret out.
[*] The link provided is a letter to Senator Stabenow from Jeffrey M. Prieto General Counsel, USDA dated July 1, 2016. It may difficult for some people to read. The text can also be found at this link because it was submitted as part of the Congressional record on July 12, 2016: “National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard,” by the Daily Edition, Issue: Vol. 162, No. 112, Congressional Record; July 12, 2016
 Full text of the Senate Bill proposal published on June 23, 2016 (14 pages) was initially referred to by Senator Pat Roberts with this title “To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a national disclosure standard for bioengineered foods, and for other purposes.” That text is available HERE. The text appears to be identical to the final bill published by the U.S. Government Publishing Office on July 15, 2016, but this version has numbers in the left column not found in the final publication.
That document is also available HERE.
*UPDATE: Congress.gov has published a format that has links to the laws that are referenced in the bill. That version is here: “Text – S.764 – 114th Congress (2015-2016): A bill to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes,” published by Congress.gov – Library of Congress
SECOND UPDATE: Govtrack.us has published a very good visual breakdown of the voting records, which can be found here: S. 764: A bill to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes – By GovTrack.us
House Vote Total on the GMO (non)labeling bill (S. 764)
July 14, 2016
—- YEAS 306 —
|Bishop (GA)||Bishop (MI)||Blum|
|Bost||Boustany||Boyle, Brendan F.|
|Brady (PA)||Brady (TX)||Brooks (IN)|
|Brown (FL)||Brownley (CA)||Bucshon|
|Carson (IN)||Carter (GA)||Carter (TX)|
|Cartwright||Castor (FL)||Castro (TX)|
|Cole||Collins (GA)||Collins (NY)|
|Davidson||Davis (CA)||Davis, Danny|
|Dold||Donovan||Doyle, Michael F.|
|Edwards||Ellmers (NC)||Emmer (MN)|
|Granger||Graves (GA)||Graves (LA)|
|Graves (MO)||Green, Al||Green, Gene|
|Herrera Beutler||Hice, Jody B.||Hill|
|Hurt (VA)||Issa||Jackson Lee|
|Jeffries||Jenkins (KS)||Jenkins (WV)|
|Johnson (GA)||Johnson (OH)||Johnson, E. B.|
|Keating||Kelly (IL)||Kelly (MS)|
|Kind||King (IA)||King (NY)|
|Lucas||Luetkemeyer||Lujan Grisham (NM)|
|Mica||Miller (FL)||Miller (MI)|
|Mulvaney||Murphy (FL)||Murphy (PA)|
|Rice (NY)||Rice (SC)||Richmond|
|Rogers (AL)||Rogers (KY)||Rokita|
|Scott, Austin||Scott, David||Sessions|
|Smith (MO)||Smith (NE)||Smith (TX)|
|Takano||Thompson (CA)||Thompson (MS)|
|Walters, Mimi||Walz||Weber (TX)|
|Wilson (FL)||Wilson (SC)||Womack|
|Young (IA)||Young (IN)||Zinke|
—- NAYS 117 —
|Chu, Judy||Cicilline||Clark (MA)|
|Lowey||Luján, Ben Ray (NM)||Maloney, Carolyn|
|Rooney (FL)||Roybal-Allard||Ryan (OH)|
|Smith (NJ)||Smith (WA)||Tipton|
|Velázquez||Wasserman Schultz||Waters, Maxine|
—- NOT VOTING 10 —
|Pearce||Poe (TX)||Sánchez, Linda T.|
Source: “Final Vote Results for S. 764; July 14, 2016 (Roll Call 466),” Office of the Clerk, House of Representatives; July 14, 2016:
QUESTION: On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to the House Amendment
BILL TITLE: An Act to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes
Senate Vote Total on the GMO (non)labeling bill (S. 764) July 7, 2016
|Alexander (R-TN)||Ayotte (R-NH)||Baldwin (D-WI)|
|Barrasso (R-WY)||Bennet (D-CO)||Blunt (R-MO)|
|Boozman (R-AR)||Brown (D-OH)||Burr (R-NC)|
|Capito (R-WV)||Carper (D-DE)||Casey (D-PA)|
|Cassidy (R-LA)||Cochran (R-MS)||Corker (R-TN)|
|Cornyn (R-TX)||Cotton (R-AR)||Crapo (R-ID)|
|Cruz (R-TX)||Daines (R-MT)||Donnelly (D-IN)|
|Enzi (R-WY)||Ernst (R-IA)||Feinstein (D-CA)|
|Fischer (R-NE)||Franken (D-MN)||Gardner (R-CO)|
|Grassley (R-IA)||Hatch (R-UT)||Heitkamp (D-ND)|
|Hirono (D-HI)||Hoeven (R-ND)||Inhofe (R-OK)|
|Isakson (R-GA)||Johnson (R-WI)|
|Kaine (D-VA)||Kirk (R-IL)||Klobuchar (D-MN)|
|Lankford (R-OK)||Manchin (D-WV)||McCain (R-AZ)|
|McCaskill (D-MO)||McConnell (R-KY)||Menendez (D-NJ)|
|Mikulski (D-MD)||Moran (R-KS)||Nelson (D-FL)|
|Perdue (R-GA)||Peters (D-MI)||Portman (R-OH)|
|Risch (R-ID)||Roberts (R-KS)||Rounds (R-SD)|
|Rubio (R-FL)||Scott (R-SC)||Shaheen (D-NH)|
|Shelby (R-AL)||Stabenow (D-MI)||Thune (R-SD)|
|Tillis (R-NC)||Toomey (R-PA)|
|Warner (D-VA)||Wicker (R-MS)|
|Blumenthal (D-CT)||Booker (D-NJ)||Cantwell (D-WA)|
|Cardin (D-MD)||Collins (R-ME)||Durbin (D-IL)|
|Flake (R-AZ)||Gillibrand (D-NY)||Heinrich (D-NM)|
|King (I-ME)||Leahy (D-VT)||Markey (D-MA)|
|Merkley (D-OR)||Murkowski (R-AK)||Murphy (D-CT)|
|Murray (D-WA)||Paul (R-KY)||Reed (D-RI)|
|Reid (D-NV)||Sanders (I-VT)||Sasse (R-NE)|
|Schatz (D-HI)||Schumer (D-NY)||Sessions (R-AL)|
|Sullivan (R-AK)||Tester (D-MT)||Udall (D-NM)|
|Warren (D-MA)||Whitehouse (D-RI)||Wyden (D-OR)|
Not Voting – 7
|Boxer (D-CA)||Coats (R-IN)||Coons (D-DE)|
|Graham (R-SC)||Heller (R-NV)||Lee (R-UT)|
Source: “U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote S764 114th Congress – 2nd Session – July 7, 2016,” compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
सत्यमेव जयते – Satyameva Jayate
(Truth Ultimately Triumphs)
Re-posting is encouraged, provided the URL of the original is posted with attribution to the original author and all links are preserved.
Copyright © Jeff Kirkpatrick 2016-2017 Ban GMOs Now All rights reserved.