The Alaska delegation could advance its fight against the commercial production of genetically modified salmon if the fiscal 2014 Senate Agriculture spending bill moves to the floor.
A controversial proposal in the bill challenges the federal government's position that genetically engineered crops and animals pose no health risks to consumers.
The appropriations measure contains a provision by Sen. Lisa Murkowski that directs the Food and Drug Administration to spend no less than $150,000 to devise a label identifying genetically engineered fish to consumers.
Murkowski, a Republican, won a 15-14 vote in the full Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday to include the policy rider in the fiscal 2014 spending bill for the Agriculture Department, FDA and other agencies. The provision would require genetically modified salmon or any product with it as an ingredient to be labeled as genetically engineered if sold in the United States.
Alaska's three lawmakers are fighting AquaBounty Technologies' years-long efforts to win approval from the FDA for its genetically modified Atlantic salmon. Alaska is home to a commercial fishing industry the delegation says could be harmed by the competing fish.
The appropriations measure is considered a contender for floor action, but the timing is uncertain.
A senior aide to Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says the $20.9 billion Agriculture appropriations measure and the Military Construction-VA bill are the most likely spending bills to generate bipartisan support.
The House version (HR 2410) was poised for floor action this week but is off the schedule following the defeat of the chamber's multi-year farm bill on June 20. It does not contain GMO fish language although if it reaches the floor there might be an attempt to add it.
In 2011, Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, succeeded on the floor in getting language added that would have stopped the FDA's review of the AquaBounty application. The language did not become law and the FDA issued a February finding that the company's genetically modified salmon poses little environmental risk. Opponents have argued that wild salmon stock could be overwhelmed if genetically engineered fish escape.
The House bill's discretionary spending is capped at $19.45 billion to meet the spending limits set by the Budget Control Act (PL 112-25). The funding level may pose a bigger challenge than the language on GMO fish.
As it stands now, there is a $1.5 billion gap between the House and Senate versions. Like other House appropriations bills, the one for agricultural programs and the FDA is under a general veto threat by the Obama administration because House leaders have embraced the budget control law's lower spending levels.
"It's a pretty huge difference," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Although House and Senate leaders talk about floor action on appropriations bills, Ellis said the growing consensus points to a continuing resolution that would provide level funding for most agencies and programs until Democrats and Republicans negotiate a larger budget deal in connection with the next debt limit increase in October or November.
"Everything going on with the appropriations process is anti-climatic," he said.
It is possible that both agriculture spending bills will make it to the floor where there will be debate and amendments.
However, Ellis likened any push ahead on the bills as "sort of like shadow boxing" with the main event to come later.
Original Publication URL: http://www.rollcall.com
Discussion
Sign Up for Updates
