Congressional Record, Volume 162 Issue 113 (Wednesday, July 13, 2016)

[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 113 (Wednesday, July 13, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4829-H4838]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO
S. 764, NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2015;
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 304, MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY
WHISTLEBLOWER ACT; AND WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(A) OF RULE
XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM
THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 822 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 822

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 764)
to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College
Program Act, and for other purposes, with the Senate
amendment to the House amendment thereto, and to consider in
the House, without intervention of any point of order, a
motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Agriculture
or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment
to the House amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion
shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable
for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to adoption without intervening motion.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (S. 304) to improve
motor vehicle safety by encouraging the sharing of certain
information. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-61 shall
be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived
with respect to any resolution reported on the legislative
day of July 14, 2016, or July 15, 2016.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 822 provides for a closed
rule providing for consideration of S. 304, the Conscience Protection
Act, and a motion to concur with the Senate amendment to the House
amendment to S. 764, GMO labeling requirements.
Madam Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of
S. 304, the Conscience Protection Act.

[[Page H4830]]

This bill protects rights of conscience for healthcare providers who
choose not to participate in abortion.
The bill reinforces current law and makes clear that Federal, State,
and local governments, including subsidiary agencies, cannot
discriminate against healthcare providers who choose not to provide
abortions.
This bill is necessary because the California Department of Managed
Health Care has mandated that all health plans must cover elective
abortion. This includes health plans offered by religious nonprofits,
and even churches.
This action by the State agency violates a provision of Federal law
known as the Weldon Amendment, which provides that States receiving
Federal funds may not discriminate against health plans based on their
decision not to cover or pay for abortions.
Religious employers in California who offer group health plans to
their employees lodged an objection with the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, which oversees enforcement of the Weldon Amendment.
HHS massively and incorrectly reinterpreted the Weldon Amendment to
allow California to continue to force these employers to pay for and
provide coverage for elective abortions.
In addition to providing commonsense protections, S. 304 also allows
a private right of action, giving providers recourse should they face
penalties or punishment for exercising their conscience rights.
To be clear, this bill does not ban or restrict abortion in any way.
If enacted, abortion will remain just as legal as it is today. In spite
of this fact, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will
continue to protest this sensible legislation.
The Conscience Protection Act is not the only important legislation
the House will consider this week. This rule also provides for
consideration of a motion to concur with the Senate amendment to the
House amendment to S. 764, GMO labeling requirements.
The Senate amendment establishes a national labeling standard for
bioengineered food, with exceptions for foods and products primarily
composed of meat, poultry, or eggs.
This measure represents a truly bipartisan effort to prevent a
complicated patchwork of State laws and regulations for labeling food
products sold throughout the country that inevitably would lead to
increased prices, confusion, and more than a few frustrated customers.

{time} 1245

Americans would be well served to have both S. 304 and S. 764
considered this week, and I commend both bills to my colleagues as
deserving of their support.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this
closed rule, which provides for consideration of S. 764, legislation to
create, in my view, inadequate GMO labeling requirements, and S. 304,
yet another Republican attack on women's health.
Both pieces of legislation are being rushed to the floor this week by
the Republican leadership as they ignore urgent calls from the American
people for action on a number of pressing public health crises like gun
violence and the Zika virus.
Speaker Ryan promised a new way of doing business in this House when
he became Speaker, but we continue to see more of the same broken
promises and failed leadership. During the past several weeks, I have
joined my Democratic colleagues in calling upon Speaker Ryan to hold a
vote on two commonsense, bipartisan pieces of legislation that are
overwhelmingly supported by the American people: the no fly, no buy
bill, and legislation to expand and strengthen our background check
system.
Communities in my home State of Massachusetts and across our country
are raising their voices and coming together to demand that Congress do
something, not hold more moments of silence but actually take action.
At the very least, we can keep guns out of the hands of criminals and
suspected terrorists. We have that power to do something about that,
and, yet, the Republican majority continues to sit on their hands and
be indifferent in the face of the tragedies that we read about each and
every day in this country.
Recognizing this call for action, Speaker Ryan announced on June 30
that the House would vote during the coming week on Republican gun-
related legislation. But instead of working with both Democrats and
Republicans on a bipartisan bill, Speaker Ryan hastily pushed out a
toothless, NRA-written and -backed bill that would do nothing to keep
Americans safe.
But even more frustrating, but sadly not surprising, is the fact that
even this bill was too much for some of the hardliners on the
Republican side. So, instead of answering the call of the American
people, eager for Congress to finally act to disarm hate and help
prevent gun violence, Speaker Ryan has canceled any votes on gun safety
legislation. It is really a sad situation, Madam Speaker.
One month after 49 lives were lost in Orlando to an act of hate and
senseless gun violence, Speaker Ryan is ready to adjourn the Congress
for the rest of the summer, failing to take any action at all to
protect the American people and keep guns out of the hands of criminals
and suspected terrorists. Americans deserve better from their leaders,
and I predict that the American people will not forget this.
But, look, we shouldn't be surprised. This is just the latest in a
string of broken promises and failed action from this Republican
majority and its leadership.
This week, instead of addressing the pressing issues I previously
mentioned, the House will be voting on a weak--on a very, very weak--
GMO labeling bill and yet another piece of legislation that attacks a
woman's right to choose.
Every American has a fundamental right to know what is in the food
that they eat, plain and simple. I believe they ought to have that
right, and that is what today's debate is about. To be clear, today's
debate is not about the science behind GMOs. It is also not about
whether GMOs are good or bad. Whether you love GMOs or hate them, we
should all agree that you ought to know if they are in the food that
you are feeding to your family and your children.
Madam Speaker, the Food and Drug Administration requires labeling of
thousands of ingredients, additives, and processes, many of which have
nothing to do with safety or nutrition. For example, the FDA requires
mandatory labeling of juice when it is from concentrate. It is just one
of the ways we tell people what is in their food and how it is made.
This piece of legislation would require companies to label their
products if they contain GMOs, and I strongly support that sentiment.
But the way this legislation is written, it provides three options for
labeling: words on the package, which makes sense; a symbol to be
developed by USDA, which makes sense; but then there is this, a so-
called quick response, or QR, code. It was at the behest of big
industry that the QR code be listed as an option, not what is in the
interest of the American consumer but what is in the interest of a few
special interests.
Now, I would be much more comfortable with a bill that requires
either words or a symbol, but a QR code is something that I cannot
support. Nobody here should support that. In order to access the
information through the QR code, an individual must have a smartphone
and must have access to the Internet. The reality is that not every
American has access to a smartphone or the Internet. Look, I don't get
reception at a local grocery store here in D.C. just a couple of blocks
from where we are here in the U.S. Capitol. It is frustrating. What
good would a QR code do if I can't get a data signal using my phone?
One in five Americans in the United States does not have a smartphone.
That includes 50 percent of Americans who are low-income and living in
rural areas and over 65 percent of elderly Americans. If we end up
going down the route

[[Page H4831]]

of a QR code, all of these people will be prevented from accessing the
information that this bill is supposed to make available to all
consumers. Even if someone has a smartphone, they will have to scan
every single item they purchase in order to obtain the desired
information, and this is assuming they will have access to the Internet
in the grocery store. That is anything but a quick response. It is a
bad idea. It is a bad idea. It is an intentional measure to deny
consumers information.
We considered what we call the DARK Act on this House floor a few
months ago. This is the son of the DARK Act. It keeps people in the
dark about what is in their food that they are buying. The debate about
GMO labeling is about transparency and the right of every American to
know what is in the food they eat. It is very simple. The best approach
would be a clear and easy-to-understand label or symbol, not some crazy
QR code that only creates more hassle and confusion.
From the very beginning of the debate about GMO labeling, some in the
food industry have stuck to two main arguments. They have said that
GMOs are perfectly safe and that it would cost far too much for them to
add a symbol or words to their packaging. But once they came up with
the idea to put a large QR code on their packaging that they hope
consumers will just simply ignore or not be able to access, they
suddenly dropped their complaints about the financial cost of changing
their packaging.
The truth is that the QR code will take up more space on their
packaging than any symbol or simple written label would, and the QR
code is going to have to include wording as well. It would be so much
easier and better for consumers for the food industry to just use
wording or a symbol and not this complicated, confusing QR code.

We know that food companies change labels on their products all the
time. Jerry Greenfield of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream said that it is a
normal cost of business to change their packaging. Campbell Soup is
committed to including words on their packaging and has said that in
doing this, there will not be an increase in food prices. I want to
thank Campbell's as well as Mars and Dannon for all committing to using
words on their label and not some kind of confusing QR code.
The majority of Americans favor mandatory GMO labels that are clear,
straightforward, and easy to understand.
Wouldn't it be nice if--and I know this is a radical idea in this
Congress--but wouldn't it be nice if, for once, this Congress actually
did what the American people want? Keeping our constituents in the dark
should not be tolerated. And, therefore, this bill should be soundly
defeated by Democrats and Republicans alike.
Madam Speaker, we are also considering a totally unrelated bill, H.R.
4828, the so-called Conscience Protection Act, which ironically is yet
another unconscionable attempt to take away women's right to health
care.
Under current law, hospitals and other healthcare providers can
already refuse service to an individual based on the practitioner's own
moral objection. But this legislation would take this a step further
and actually permit the withholding of medical information about a
patient's condition if the physician believes that such information
could potentially lead to an abortion. Bosses would be permitted to
impose their own religious beliefs across their entire company by
withholding abortion services on employer-sponsored health plans. It is
not an employer's decision what type of medical care is needed by their
employees. Women have the same rights to access health care as men do,
and no boss should be able to deny them that right.
This will be the House Republicans' 13th vote to attack women's
health care in this Congress alone. Thirteen times we have gone down a
similar road. How can we possibly consider a bill that would allow
insurance companies, doctors, or healthcare facilities to substitute
their own religious opinions for actual medical information? Every
woman should be able to trust that, when they go to their doctor, they
are receiving all the facts and information that they need to make
their own health decisions.
Encouraging doctors to withhold vital information from women about
their health is outrageous and incredibly dangerous. Such a reckless
bill has no place in Congress. This bill is nothing more than the
latest attempt by House Republicans to appeal to their extreme
rightwing base.
This legislation does not include any exemption in the case of rape,
incest, or endangering the life of the woman and would preempt any
State law that does allow for the coverage of abortion.
Madam Speaker, we have countless women sharing their stories of how
these types of laws have had devastating and tragic effects on them.
One woman's water broke at 20 weeks prematurely, and doctors determined
that the fetus would not survive birth. The Catholic hospital she was
at refused to perform an abortion since the fetus still had a
heartbeat. For 7 weeks, this woman had to carry a fetus in her with the
knowledge that it had no chance of survival. It wasn't until she was
suffering from severe hemorrhaging that a hospital would finally induce
labor. The baby died almost immediately after birth, as doctors
expected.
Another woman's water broke prematurely at 18 weeks. She was rushed
to the nearest hospital, which was a Catholic hospital. Doctors knew
that the fetus was no longer viable and would die immediately upon
birth. However, this information was withheld from the woman. She was
simply given two Tylenol and sent home unaware that there was no chance
her child would survive birth. The woman returned twice more, each time
with severe bleeding, and it was only at the end of the second visit as
they were sending her home, she went into labor and gave birth. The
baby died within hours, as the doctors expected.
Women's health must always come first, and this only puts more lives
at risk.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to
support this rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
Mrs. WALORSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Conscience Protection Act, a bill I cosponsored to protect pro-life
healthcare providers from discrimination.
Doctors, nurses, employers, social service agencies, and insurance
plans that choose not to take part in abortions as a matter of
conscience should not face discrimination or penalty.
This bill reaffirms protections already in place by prohibiting the
Federal Government and entities that receive Federal funding from
discriminating against or penalizing those who are exercising their
conscience rights while, most importantly, it gives victims of
discrimination legal recourse to defend themselves.
Currently, it is up to the Department of Health and Human Services to
enforce the law--and that is something that this administration has not
always been willing to do.
The Conscience Protection Act will give pro-life healthcare providers
and employers full conscience protections without loopholes or
uncertainty.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this essential bill to
protect life and those who exercise their conscience rights.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I oppose this closed rule on an obnoxious bill. This bill is just
another attempt in a long line of Republican attempts to interfere with
women's health choices. This bill is part of a disturbing national
trend. Some legislators at the Federal, State, and local level are
attempting to insert religious exemptions into antidiscrimination and
pro-women's health laws with which they do not agree.
Rather than trying a frontal assault on the laws themselves--which
they know they would lose--they seek instead to use the premise of
religion to allow further discrimination against women. We must not let
them succeed.
Let's be clear what this is really all about. The Republicans are not
happy with the Supreme Court's pro-choice decisions. They are not happy
with the Affordable Care Act, which provides contraceptive coverage to
millions of women with no out-of-pocket costs.

[[Page H4832]]

{time} 1300

But try as they may, they cannot overturn Roe v. Wade and they cannot
repeal ObamaCare. The American people won't let them do that. So now
they are trying to bring religion into the discussion and dare us to
oppose what they call basic First Amendment principles about freedom of
religion. Well, guess what: that is not going to work either.
We see their bias, we see their intent, and we will not let them
enshrine discrimination into Federal law. We won't let you punish women
just because you are not pro-choice. That is not going to happen.
Let's be honest. This is not about religion; it is about abortion and
contraception. So let's stop the charade.
In this case, the bill's sole purpose is to deny access to, and
create more barriers to women seeking medical procedures that are legal
and constitutionally protected. The bill would enable employers and
healthcare companies to override women's personal reproductive health
decisions. We have said this before and we will say it again: women's
reproductive healthcare decisions simply should not be their boss'
business.
Religious convictions should be protected but cannot be permitted to
infringe on the rights of others. Employers, other than religious
institutions, have no right to impose their religious opinions on their
employees. An employer's opinion about the propriety of birth control
or abortion must have no bearing on whether an employee can get access
to abortion or birth control services.
Certainly no woman should be denied information about her medical
condition or about birth control or abortion because of the religious
opinions of her employer; that is not protecting the religious opinion
of the employer. That is projecting the religious opinion of the
employer onto the employee in derogation of her rights. Religious
protections must not be used as a sword against the rights of third
parties. They must be used as a shield to protect your own religious
liberty, but not to hurt other people.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, predictably, our colleagues are
misrepresenting the contents of this bill. This bill does not affect
any abortion provider who currently performs the procedure and who
wishes to continue.
If the Conscience Protection Act becomes law, abortion will still be
just as legal and accessible as it is today. The bill seeks only to
ensure that healthcare providers will not be forced by government to
violate their moral or religious convictions.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).
Mrs. WAGNER. Madam Speaker, I am honored to stand before the House
today to speak on the Conscience Protection Act. I am speaking today on
behalf of the over 55 million children who are unable to speak for
themselves. I grieve their deaths.
Abortion not only brutally ends the life of children, it also forever
changes the lives of their mothers. Because of the negative outcomes of
abortion for mothers and children, many healthcare providers choose not
to participate in this abhorrent practice. We must protect healthcare
providers who reasonably--and conscientiously--object to participating
in abortion.
At a speech in 2009, President Obama said clearly: ``Let's honor the
conscience of those who disagree with abortion.'' But that is no longer
the practice of this administration.
Today, across the country, in flagrant violation of Federal law,
churches are being forced to buy healthcare plans that pay for
abortions, and nurses have been forced to assist in abortions.
The Conscience Protection Act would stop the government from
discriminating against providers that exercise their right of
conscience. It would ensure that those who have been penalized for
exercising this right are allowed their day in court.
Madam Speaker, nobody should be forced to choose between their values
or their job. Our country was founded on the right of conscience. We
cannot abandon them now.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let's be clear, and I want all of my
colleagues to be clear on this issue. This bill would allow a woman's
boss to decide whether or not she could have an abortion--her boss--
because this bill allows employers who offer healthcare plans to deny
women access to abortion services. This is outrageous, and I can't
believe that this kind of bill has come to this floor.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote
against the Conscience Protection Act. This is just another attempt by
the Republican majority to create barriers for women as they make
personal decisions about their reproductive health care. This
legislation would expand and make permanent existing refusal policies,
which would erode important patient protections.
If this law were enacted, employers and companies could refuse to
provide information to women about their health care. That is
unacceptable.
Women have a right to receive all of the information they need as
they make important decisions that are personal to them. Women's access
to care, our ability to make choices about our health, and our right to
be informed should always be protected.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this damaging legislation for
women's health.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, if laws already enacted in
the religious liberty protections enshrined in our Constitution were
actually being protected, we wouldn't be here. We wouldn't be needing
to vote on the Conscience Protection Act in the House of
Representatives today.
Is it an attempt to prevent something? Yes. It is an attempt to
protect all Americans' rights under our First Amendment. It is just
that simple. Unfortunately, the right to exercise one's own conscience
is under attack in the United States at the Federal and State level.
Let's be very clear on this. Conscience, as defined, is the ``inner
sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling
one towards right action.'' It is the feeling that one has done
something morally right or wrong. You cannot deny people rights that
were enshrined in our Constitution and in our Bill of Rights just
because it doesn't happen to fit a popular narrative right now.
If we cannot come together as the people's House and protect what we
have been given by our forefathers and has been enshrined in our Bill
of Rights and try to make it into something different, then we have
totally missed the mark, and America should be greatly disappointed in
whom they have sent to represent them.
None of us can turn our back on the Constitution. None of us can say
that somehow this is something different than what it is. It is the
protection of one's freedoms and liberties under our Bill of Rights and
in our First Amendment. It is that simple.

Conscience--conscience--why should somebody have to sacrifice their
religious conscience because somebody says let's redefine it into
something else? It is nothing more than doing the right thing because
it is the right thing to do, and I am talking about religious
conscience.
Why would we limit our schools and our hospitals of religious
founding? Why would we say to them, no, you don't have the right to do
this; we are going to supersede that?
It is protection for the rights of the First Amendment. That is
something we all took an oath to do, and that is what we need to do.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, again, if you believe that a woman's
boss should make the decision about whether or not she could have
access to abortion services, then you support this bill. I happen to
think that a woman should make that decision on her own. It should be
her decision and not the decision of her boss.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Engel), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts. I
think he just put it correctly.
These are difficult choices. They are moral choices. They are choices
from

[[Page H4833]]

the heart and choices from the gut. But I do think that a woman who is
in need of an abortion in her mind has the right to have those kinds of
services and has the right to not have her boss veto them for her.
The Conscience Protection Act is the latest in a long line of
attempts to interfere with women's autonomy and medical care. I have
come to the floor a number of times to defend a woman's right to make
her own healthcare decisions, a concept that, frankly, shouldn't need a
defense at all. I respect decisions, one way or another.
This bill is marketed as one that would protect conscience rights,
but let's be clear. Current law already allows health professionals to
object to providing abortions for moral or religious reasons. The
Conscience Protection Act would take this concept to a new extreme,
expanding opportunities for employers to discriminate against women
based on their reproductive health choices.
We have said this before and we will say it again: women's personal
healthcare decisions are not their boss' business. An employer should
not have the right to veto a medical decision by a woman. It is just
not right.
Every patient should be able to make fully informed decisions about
her health care without interference of her employer, and certainly
without interference from Congress. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
bill.
Again, whatever your moral choices are, I respect them; on both
sides, I respect them. But it is not right for a woman who is seeking
an abortion to have that abortion vetoed because her boss doesn't like
abortions. I think that is a decision that should be left to the woman
alone, not put more pressure on her, not force her to go against her
will. This is something dealing with her body, her rights, not her
boss' rights, so I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, the charge that this would allow a woman's
boss to prevent her from obtaining an abortion is a true outrage. It is
a disgusting red herring.
This bill would allow employers to continue to have the freedom to
decline to pay for abortions. No American should be forced to pay for
the killing of an unborn child, whether they are a taxpayer or a
private citizen. The other side should not stoop to such tactics.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend, Mrs. Foxx for
yielding and thank her for her extraordinary Pro-life leadership.
Madam Speaker, in an unconscionable abuse of power, for almost 2
years, the State of California has forced all insurance plans under its
purview and the people in institutions that pay the premiums--to
subsidize abortion on demand. Numerous faith-based entities filed
complaints pursuant to law with the HHS Office for Civil Rights
seeking, and fully expecting, relief.
Effective June 21, however, the Obama administration flatly refused
to enforce U.S. law--current law--protecting the civil right of
conscience. Cardinal Timothy Dolan said, ``It is shocking that HHS has
allowed the State of California to force all employers--even churches--
to fund and facilitate elective abortions in their health insurance
plans.''
I would note parenthetically to my colleagues, this isn't about
ObamaCare and the massive taxpayer funding for abortion embedded--
according to GAO's analysis--in over 1,000 insurance plans on the
exchanges, which was contrary to what the President had promised right
here in this Chamber, 30 feet away from me, in a joint session of
Congress in 2009. No. This is about private health insurance plans of
Catholic dioceses, religious schools, and others who have been ordered
to violate their deeply held convictions and pay for the killing of
unborn children by hideous dismemberment procedures, toxic compounds,
or chemical poisoning.
The Weldon Federal conscience clause, authored by Congressman Dave
Weldon of Florida and continuously in effect for well over a decade, is
explicit and comprehensive, but it is not being enforced by the Obama
Administration.
The Weldon amendment says, in pertinent part, that it is illegal for
any ``discrimination'' against a healthcare entity ``on the basis that
the healthcare entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of,
or refer for abortions.'' The law's definition of healthcare entity
explicitly includes ``a health insurance plan.''
Despite the absolute clarity of the Weldon language, injured parties,
including the Catholic church, have been denied relief.
The Obama Administration's refusal to enforce the civil right of
conscience is not only unfair and unjustified, it violates the rule of
law, makes a mockery of the President's 2009 Notre Dame speech,
mentioned by my colleague from Missouri, when Obama said: ``Let's honor
the conscience of those who disagree with abortion.'' Mr. Obama's words
don't match his deeds and he is not honoring the civil rights of
conscience.
The Conscience Protection Act of 2016, authored by Congresswoman
Diane Black, seeks to end discrimination against people, plans, and
providers for refusing to be involved in the killing of unborn
children. The bill says that the Federal Government or any State or
local government that receives Federal assistance may not penalize,
retaliate against, or otherwise discriminate against those who refuse
to perform, refer for, pay for, or otherwise participate in abortion.

{time} 1315

The linchpin of this legislation, of the Conscience Protection Act,
protects people, insurance plans, and other entities from being forced
to participate by providing a private right of action.
The HHS Office for Civil Rights has failed miserably. In this
country, we need a remedy that is durable and that will provide the
protection that people are demanding, especially today in California,
but really the entire country.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let's be honest with one another. What this is all about here is that
some of my friends on the other side believe that abortion should be
illegal all across the country, that no woman should have the right to
abortion services. They are upset with the Supreme Court decision of
Roe v. Wade, and they are frustrated that they can't find a way around
it. This is what this is about: trying to deny women access to these
kinds of services through maneuvers that are in this bill.
It is absolutely true that what this legislation does is to leave in
the hands of her boss the decision about whether or not a woman can
have an abortion or not. That is what this does. I want to be clear
about one thing so my colleagues understand this. No taxpayer money--
that is the law--can be used to subsidize abortion. That is the law of
the land: no taxpayer money.
What this does is allow an employer who doesn't agree that abortion
should be legal the ability to provide health insurance that doesn't
cover it. So, if you are a low-income woman, you are out of luck. You
could try to pay for the services out-of-pocket that are affiliated
with having an abortion, which is almost impossible, and there could be
complications.
It is crazy that we are here, debating a bill like this that would
basically remove a woman out of this equation. We have better things to
do on this House floor than this bill.
Let's also be clear in that the reason we are doing it now is that
the Republican National Convention is next week, and my colleagues are
desperate to appeal to the hard-liners in their base. That is what this
is all about. This will never become law, and we shouldn't be doing
this on the floor.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, it is not true. Conservatives don't ask for
bosses to purchase weapons that are protected under the Second
Amendment. Why must my Progressive colleagues ask private citizens to
pay for the death of a child?
I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), the
sponsor of the underlying legislation.
Mrs. BLACK. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule to allow for the
consideration of my bill, S. 304, the Conscience Protection Act.
The Members of this body represent a broad array of views on matters
of life

[[Page H4834]]

and abortion. But, surely, we can all at least agree on this: that
nobody should ever be forced to participate in the act of abortion
against one's will. That is what my legislation is about.
As it stands today, the conscience rights of pro-life Americans are
not being consistently upheld. As a matter of fact, nurses have been
required to assist in abortions despite their moral objections, and
States like California and New York are now requiring every insurance
plan, including those by churches and Christian universities, to
include elective abortion coverage. This is wrong.
Madam Speaker, I am a nurse. I have been so for more than 45 years,
and I still keep my license today. I love my job, but I would never
sacrifice my view on the sanctity of life in order to keep it, and I
shouldn't have to. Being an American has always meant experiencing the
freedom to live according to one's deeply held beliefs at home, at
work, and in the public square. My bill simply ensures that that will
remain the case.
Think about it this way: a search of the Congressional Record returns
over 1,300 results for the phrase ``right to choose.'' My colleagues
across the aisle use that term often. Of course, their argument leaves
no choice for the unborn child in the womb, but it stands to reason
that if politicians will protect that right to choose, then they must
protect the other right to choose as well, the right not to be a forced
partner in the practice of abortion. That is simply what my bill would
do.
The government recognizes the importance of protecting conscience
rights in other arenas: ObamaCare prohibits government discrimination
against entities that do not participate in assisted suicide, and
Federal employees are not required to participate in Federal death
penalty executions. Why should abortion be any different?
Madam Speaker, if Americans can't abide by their own consciences,
particularly on a matter of a deeply held belief such as this, then we
have lost one of our most basic freedoms there is.
Just to reiterate that which has already been said, this bill does
not change the law of today on abortion. It does not. I challenge my
colleagues to show me in the language of the bill where it does. It
will remain exactly the way it is. This bill does not affect women's
access to abortion. As a matter of fact, even in the bill, we make sure
that that access is still there in the bill's language, and this bill
does not affect employers in the services that they give to their
employees.
Today, we can change this. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
It is frustrating to listen to this debate because, apparently, facts
don't matter. The fact of the matter is that this bill is not needed to
protect healthcare providers from being forced to provide or to
participate in the provisions of abortion. Healthcare providers already
have those protections under current law. What this bill does is to
seek to empower a woman's boss to decide whether or not she can have
access to abortion services--a woman's boss.
By the way, the health insurance that is being provided is not
taxpayer-funded health care; it is health insurance that the woman
herself pays into. She pays into health insurance, but her boss
decides--if circumstances arose in which she thought, in order to
protect her life or in extenuating circumstances, that she wanted to
have an abortion--whether or not she could have that, whether or not it
would be covered. That is what this is. This is about trying to deny
women--in this case, mostly low-income women--the ability to have
access to abortion services.
It is really kind of an underhanded attempt by my colleagues to get
at Roe v. Wade, which I know they don't like. But that is the law of
the land. They are trying to make it so that women cannot have access
to safe abortion services if circumstances so call for that.
I just find this whole debate to be so out of touch with what the
facts are. Again, existing policies already permit certain entities,
like hospitals, to refuse to perform abortions, and most of these
policies explicitly permit the refusal on the basis of religious or
moral objection. What this does is to go a step further. It seeks to
make it almost impossible for poor women in particular to be able to
have access to the rights that they are guaranteed under the
Constitution. I really think that this is a bad thing for us to be
considering on the floor.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, my colleague is correct. This debate is far
from the facts, but it is not on our side of the aisle. When you say
something wrong, repeating it doesn't make it correct. This bill
has nothing to do with abortion access. That is a fact. It has to do
with conscience rights, period.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, as a physician, I took an oath to save
lives, to protect lives, and as a heart surgeon, I worked day and night
to save lives, to protect life at every step of the way. I believe that
the oath I took way back when I finished medical school meant
protecting all stages of life.
Healthcare providers who share this belief should not be forced to
act against their consciences by participating in or by facilitating an
abortion. Current law prevents discrimination against healthcare
providers who do not wish to participate in abortions. Unfortunately,
the Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Civil Rights
refuses to enforce this policy in its taking years, oftentimes, to
consider complaints of conscience rights violations. That is just
wrong. It is wrong.
The Conscience Protection Act will provide the healthcare community--
doctors, nurses, hospitals, and insurers alike--with the right to seek
their day in court when the administration fails to enforce existing
law. Americans should never be forced to violate their conscience
rights in order to do their jobs.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, we are dealing with two pieces of legislation on this rule:
one that would deny women's rights and another that would deny
consumers' rights in terms of this inadequate GMO labeling bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Consumers
Union, which is opposed to the GMO labeling bill. I include in the
Record a letter that opposes this legislation and that is signed by
countless consumer and healthcare organizations. I also include in the
Record a New York Times editorial entitled ``A Flawed Approach to
Labeling Genetically Modified Food.''

Consumers Union, Policy & Action From Consumer Reports,
Yonkers, NY, July 12, 2016.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congresswoman Slaughter: Consumers Union, the policy
and mobilization arm of Consumer Reports, urges you to vote
no on S. 764, which includes a bill by Senator Roberts and
Senator Stabenow related to the disclosure of genetically
engineered (GE) food. This bill will not provide consumers
with the clear information about GE food that nine out of ten
consumers have repeatedly said they want. The legislation
would preempt state laws requiring clear, on-package labeling
of GE food, replacing them two or more years from now with an
ineffective federal disclosure program to be established by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Significant
questions have been raised about this program's scope.
We have several specific concerns with S. 764. First, this
bill, which allows USDA to take two years to develop
implementing rules, undermines GE labeling occurring in the
marketplace. Labels indicating that a food is produced with
genetic engineering are already appearing on store shelves
across the country, in compliance with duly enacted state
labeling requirements. S. 764 would invalidate laws in states
including Vermont, Alaska, Connecticut, and Maine, and
produce a legal vacuum for at least two years while USDA
writes federal rules.
Second, the definition of ``bioengineering'' is unclear,
and will be subject to interpretation by the Secretary of
Agriculture. As a result, there is an active and unresolved
dispute about to what extent S. 764 includes or excludes many
GE food products from the bill's requirements. This lack of
clarity deeply concerns Consumers Union, as we believe that
the regulations, should this bill become law, should be very
broad in scope.
There are other significant problems with the bill's
coverage. For example, while the bill does cover some
products containing both GE ingredients and meat, it
specifically

[[Page H4835]]

exempts any food where meat is the main ingredient, even if
the food product contains other ingredients that are
genetically engineered.
Third, S. 764 allows companies to employ methods of
disclosure that are difficult to use, are not available to
all consumers, and put rural, older and low income consumers
at a disadvantage. The bill allows for disclosure via QR
codes, designed to be scanned by a smartphone. Scanning a QR
code may not be feasible for numerous consumers who are
unfamiliar with the technology or who lack a smartphone, as
three out of four older Americans and about half of rural
residents do. As QR codes are already used for many purposes
on packages, their presence is not a flag--it does not
constitute a de facto or easily recognizable indication that
a product contains GE ingredients.
Consumers express a clear preference for labels visible to
the naked eye. Nearly nine out of ten in a recent survey
favored printed, on-package information over scannable bar
codes for labels indicating whether food at the grocery store
contains GE ingredients, and only 8% preferred the scannable
code. Other methods in the legislation that do not involve
scannable codes would be significantly more difficult for
consumers to use. Navigating a corporate website or dialing a
customer call center would each require consumers to go
through a multi-step process simply to determine if a food
contains GE ingredients.
While Consumers Union agrees with the goal of establishing
a uniform national standard for disclosure of GE food
ingredients, this bill does not accomplish that goal. In
fact, it does the opposite--prohibiting states from
exercising their ability to protect consumers through labels
while failing to create a credible, clear, unambiguous
federal labeling requirement. Furthermore, this bill creates
hurdles for consumers to determine quickly and easily while
shopping if a product contains GE ingredients.
Consumers have said overwhelmingly that they want GE food
to be labeled as such, and states have responded to their
requests. The House should not disregard these views by
eliminating state laws relating to GE food labeling and
replacing them with a vague program that gives USDA excessive
latitude in implementation. We therefore urge you to vote no
on S. 764, and instead encourage you to continue working
toward a uniform solution that serves the interests of both
food producers and consumers.
Sincerely,
Jean Halloran,
Director, Food Policy Initiatives.
____

July 11, 2016.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Re GMO Labeling Bill--OPPOSE

Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned food
safety, farm, environmental, and consumer advocacy
organizations and food corporations, and the millions of
members we represent across the United States, we strongly
oppose the new Roberts/Stabenow legislation on GMO food
labeling. The bill was passed by the Senate last week and is
expected to come to the House floor this week.
The process that created this legislation has been
profoundly undemocratic and a violation of basic legislative
practice. The bill addresses a critical issue for the
American public, yet it was neither subject to a single
hearing nor any testimony whatsoever. Rather, the bill's
preemption of the democratically decided-upon labeling laws
of several states, and seed laws of numerous states and
municipalities, is the result of non-transparent
``bargaining'' between two senators and industry interest
groups.
As explained in more detail below, we oppose the bill
because it is actually a non-labeling bill under the guise of
a mandatory labeling bill. It exempts major portions of
current and future GMO foods from labeling; it is on its face
discriminatory against low income, rural and elderly
populations; it is a gross violation of the sovereignty of
numerous states around the nation; and it provides no
enforcement against those who violate the law.
(1) No mandatory standards--The Senate bill itself
prescribes no mandatory standards for GMO labeling. Rather,
it preempts the labeling laws of several states including
Vermont, Connecticut, Maine and Alaska based exclusively on a
multi-year discretionary process determined solely by an as
of yet unknown, future USDA Secretary.
(2) A vast number of current and future GE foods will be
exempt from any labeling--Either intentionally, or through
poor drafting and lack of scientific expertise, the novel
definition of ``bioengineering'' under the bill would exclude
from labeling a vast number of current foods produced with
genetic engineering, including those where the
``modification'' is ``found in nature,'' those in which
technology cannot as yet detect the novel genetic material,
and foods made with non in vitro recombinant DNA techniques,
such as new generations of food made with RNAi and so-called
``gene-editing'' techniques. In fact, 99% of all GMO food
COULD be exempt from labeling as the bill leaves it entirely
up to a future USDA Secretary to determine what ``amount'' of
GMO ingredients in a food qualifies it for labeling. If that
Secretary were to decide on a high percentage of GMO content,
it would exempt virtually all processed GMO foods which
comprise more than 99% of all GMO foods on the market.
(3) Discrimination against rural, low income and elderly
populations--The bill anticipates that GMO labeling will be
done primarily through QR codes (``digital'' labeling).
Because of their lack of access to smart phones, more than
50% of rural and low income populations, and more than 65% of
the elderly, will have no access to these labels. This impact
will fall disproportionately on minority communities.
Millions more that do have smart phones may not be able to
access these QR codes because they cannot afford to maintain
their data service or their neighborhoods do not have
adequate network coverage. The study of the efficacy of QR
codes outlined in the bill is to take place significantly
AFTER any labeling is established and in the marketplace. The
results of such a study, if any, may take many years to
clarify and codify. Such a ``study'' provision is clearly not
sufficient to absolve the bill of an unconstitutional
discriminatory impact.
(4) Violation of State sovereignty by specifically
preempting GMO seed laws and potentially numerous other laws
and regulations--The bill not only preempts state food
labeling laws, but also specifically preempts GMO seed
labeling laws, such as those in Vermont and Virginia that are
designed to help farmers determine what seeds to buy and
plant. Additionally, either intentionally or through poor
drafting, the bill could be interpreted to be a preemption of
more than 100 different state and municipal laws and
regulations throughout the nation.
(5) No enforcement against those who violate mandatory GMO
labeling--The bill provides no civil or criminal penalties
whatsoever against those not in compliance with GMO labeling
requirements. The bill specifically excludes the capacity of
the USDA to order any recall of misbranded food, even in
cases where a product has been produced with genetic
engineering but the corporation involved purposely decides to
violate the law and not label.
For this and other reasons, including the bill's
definitions being in direct conflict with regulations under
the National Organic Food Production Act, the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the international Codex
Alimentarius, the undersigned organizations and companies
urge you to VOTE NO on this misguided, inherently
discriminatory bill. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Center for Food Safety, Food and Water Watch, Abundance
Cooperative Market, Beyond Pesticides, Biosafety Alliance,
Cedar Circle Farm and Education Center, Central Park West
CSA, Citizens for GMO Labeling, Council for Responsible
Genetics, Crop CSA, Crush Wine and Spirits, Dr. Bronner's,
East New York Farms, Empire State Consumer Project, Family
Farm Defenders, Farm Aid, Food Democracy Now.
Foundation Earth, Friends of the Earth, Genesis Farm,
Greenpeace, GMO Action Alliance, GMO Free NY, GMO Free USA,
GMO Inside, Good Earth Natural Foods, iEat Green, LLC,
Institute for Responsible Technology, International Center
for Technology Assessment, Katchkie Farm, Keep the Soil in
Organic Coalition, Kezialain Farm.
Label GMOs, LIC Brewery, Maine Organic Farmers and
Gardeners Association, Midwest Organic & Sustainable
Education Service, Miskell's Premium Organics, Moms Across
America, National Family Farm Coalition, National Organic
Coalition, Nature's Path, Nine Mile Market, Non-GMO Project,
Nutiva, Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, Northeast
Organic Farming Association, Northeast Organic Farming
Association of New York, Northeast Organic Farming
Association of New Hampshire, Northeast Organic Farming
Association of Vermont, NYC H20.
Oregon Right to Know, Organic Consumers Association,
Organic Farmers' Agency for Relationship Marketing, Inc.,
Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, Our Family Farms,
PCC Natural Markets, Pesticide Action Network North America,
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Presence Marketing,
Regeneration Vermont, Riverside-Salem United Church of
Christ/Disciples of Christ, Rodale Institute, Rumiano Cheese
Company.
Rural Advancement Foundation International, Rural
Advancement Foundation International USA, Rural Vermont,
Sierra Club, Slow Food California, Slow Food Hudson Valley,
Slow Food North Shore, Slow Food USA, Soil Not Oil Coalition,
Sunnyside CSA, The Cornucopia Institute, The Organic & Non-
GMO Report, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Vermont
Public Interest Research Group, Vermont Right to Know GMOs
Coalition, Wood Prairie Family Farm.
____

[The New York Times, July 6, 2016]

A Flawed Approach to Labeling Genetically Modified Food

(By the Editorial Board)

The Senate is expected to vote as early as Thursday on a
bill that would require businesses to label genetically
modified foods. Unfortunately, it would allow companies to
use confusing electronic codes for scanning instead of
simple, clear labels.
This bill, a bipartisan compromise negotiated by Senator
Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, and Senator Debbie
Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, is being pushed through
Congress because some lawmakers from farm states want to pre-
empt a Vermont law that requires labeling for some
genetically modified foods that went into effect on July 1
(Vermont is giving companies six months to comply) and to
prevent other states from enacting similar laws. The Senate
bill follows an failed effort in March to block state
labeling laws. The House passed a bill last year

[[Page H4836]]

that would pre-empt states from enforcing such laws.
While most scientists say that genetically modified foods
do not pose a risk to human health, consumers should have a
right to more information about what they are eating. Polls
have found that a vast majority of Americans favor mandatory
labels. Dozens of countries, including all 28 members of the
European Union and Australia, already require similar
disclosures.
Researchers have found that labels do not dissuade people
from consuming genetically engineered food, which has been a
big worry of farm groups and businesses. It is no surprise
then that some companies, like Campbell Soup, have
voluntarily agreed to label their products.
The biggest problem with the Senate bill is that--instead
of requiring a simple label, as the Vermont law does--it
would allow food companies to put the information in
electronic codes that consumers would have to scan with
smartphones or at scanners installed by grocery stores. The
only reason to do this would be to make the information less
accessible to the public.
Another problem is that the bill might not cover some kinds
of genetic engineering. The Food and Drug Administration
warned that the bill ``would result in a somewhat narrow
scope of coverage''--for example, food that includes oil made
from genetically engineered soybeans might not need to be
labeled.
The bill's sponsors, however, contend that under the
Department of Agriculture's analysis, the bill would require
labeling of products that contain genetically engineered
soybeans and refined oils. This lack of clarity is troubling,
and certainly needs to be resolved. Exempting large
categories of genetically modified foods would make the
labels useless.
In addition to Vermont, labeling laws have been passed in
Connecticut and Maine, but those measures will go into effect
only if neighboring states adopt similar legislation.
Clearly, a strong federal standard would be preferable to a
patchwork of state rules. But the Senate bill needs more
work.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, Vermont's GMO labeling law, Act 120, was
signed into law in 2014 after years of hearings, testimony, and debate.
It was the first-in-the-Nation GMO labeling law, but Americans should
understand that 64 nations around the world have GMO labeling. That law
was passed by a vote of 28-2 in the Vermont Senate and by 114-30 in the
House. It garnered support from Republicans and Democrats. The reason
it did is that labeling is simply giving consumers information that
they can use in deciding whether they want to buy a particular product
or not. GMO labeling tells consumers whether the product contains GMOs.
Some of its opponents oppose this largely because they think
consumers aren't entitled to that information even though they believe
that GMOs are tremendous. But if they want to brag about GMOs, why
don't they want to label GMO products so consumers can make their own
decisions? Now what we have is a situation in which the legislation we
are going to be considering says that we will put a label on but not
one that you can read.
The label that would be ascribed would allow manufacturers to decide
to put on ``GMO contained herein''--and that is in English--just like a
calorie label or how much salt is in there.
It would also give them the option of using, in effect, a barcode
whereby, when you are shopping and you have got to get home to make
dinner and you have got to take a son or a daughter out to a play
practice or to a sports game, you have to take your iPhone, scan the
barcode, go to a Web site, and then investigate the Web site as to
whether or not that can of black beans contains GMOs. Who has time to
do that? How is that a practical option?
The other option for the company is to put on a 1-800 number, where
you are probably getting a call center overseas, and you are talking to
somebody about the beans that you are buying at the co-op in
Burlington. Folks who are busy mountain women don't have time to do
that, so let's get real.
This bill that the Senate has sent over is dumb. If you want to label
something, use English. That is all you have to do, and we should
accept the fact for our consumers, the people we represent. If they
want to know something, why not tell them?
I applaud Campbell Soup for deciding it is just going to put GMO
labels on the products and will let the consumers decide. Let's kill
this bill. Let's get a national standard that uses English.

{time} 1330

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate so much my colleague from Vermont being concerned about
the time that mountain women have for looking at their beans.
I want to tell you, we have been eating genetically modified food
since the beginning of time, Mr. Speaker, all of us have. Anybody who
raises a garden knows that you collect your good seeds, and you try to
use them over and over and over again because you have a good product.
People have been modifying food genetically, again, from the
beginning of time. We try to breed good cattle with good cattle. We
have been doing that since we have had any sense about what was good
and what was bad in terms of our food. It has been going on a long
time.
Guess what?
I just love my heirloom tomatoes, and I am looking forward to a whole
bunch of them this summer.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to talk about S. 764, the GMO labeling
requirements. The labeling requirement provides flexibility to food
manufacturers by giving them a variety of options to meet disclosure
requirements.
My colleague talked about the Vermont Legislature being bipartisan.
The Senate bill was very bipartisan. For instance, a product may have a
label with text explaining its contents or it may have a QR code or an
electronic link to identify bioengineered products. The food
manufacturer chooses their preferred method of disclosure.
To ensure ease of use, S. 764 requires the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to conduct a study to identify potential roadblocks
consumers may encounter when trying to access the disclosure
information. The measure allows food manufacturers of all sizes
adequate time to comply with the law's requirements and provides
additional protections for small businesses.
This bill represents a bipartisan compromise on this issue, and I
commend this rule and the underlying bill to my colleagues.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just point out to the gentlewoman that 88 percent of
consumers said they would prefer on-package labeling for genetically
engineered food rather than some QR code.
Again, what this bill is about is trying to appease industry. I would
say to my friends, if you want to know why we are appealing to certain
industry, just follow the money because that is how so many pieces of
legislation in this Republican-controlled House are crafted.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question.
And if we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the
bipartisan no fly, no buy legislation, which would allow the Attorney
General to bar the sale of firearms and explosives to those on the
FBI's terrorist watch list.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, prior to the
vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holding). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 2\1/2\
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the
previous question so that our ranking member can bring up his amendment
to prevent suspected terrorists, people who are on the FBI's no-fly
list, people who can't fly on an airplane because the FBI has
determined it is too dangerous to the American public to allow these
people to fly. But under existing law, they can legally buy a gun of
their choice at a gun store. That is wrong. We all know it is wrong.
Eighty-five percent of the American people believe that is wrong and
support this measure.
We believe that terrorists, that criminals, domestic abusers, and the
dangerously mentally ill should not be able to have easy access to
guns. Background checks and the no fly, no buy legislation are the two
ways to make it tougher for them to get guns.

[[Page H4837]]

We are getting ready, under the Republican leadership, to run out of
here and take weeks' worth of vacation without addressing this issue. I
think it is shameful.
We have had 34,000 deaths by someone using a gun since the Sandy Hook
tragedy 3\1/2\ years ago. We have had 1,196 mass shootings since the
Sandy Hook tragedy. We have held 31 moments of silence on this floor
for people who have been killed in mass shootings, but we have had zero
votes on any gun violence prevention legislation. That is wrong.
The background check bill that we have before us is a bipartisan
bill. As a matter of fact, there are 197 Members of Congress who are
the coauthors of that bill, Democrats and Republicans. Ninety percent
of the American people support it.
Why won't the Republican leadership allow that bill to be voted on
here on the floor?
Every day there is another gun violence tragedy. We just had
yesterday the memorial for the tragic situation in Dallas, Texas, where
five police officers were murdered by someone using a gun.
It is not a partisan issue. When somebody takes a gun and goes to
kill someone, they don't ask if they are Democrats or if they are
Republicans. We need to put the partisan strife aside and deal with
this. We need to come to this floor and work on solutions that will
help keep the people who sent us to Washington, D.C., safe. It is long
past time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, right outside of
my district, two individuals with AK-47s held up an armored car. They
shot one of the guards, and they took off and ended up in my district
where police stopped them. One of them shot at the local police
officer. He was able to hit him with his car. They arrested him. The
other one with his AK-47 took off on the run. Two SWAT teams, the FBI,
and the local police were out there trying to hunt this guy down with
an AK-47.
This is personal. This could happen in any of our districts. It is
real personal for me because one of those cops looking for this guy was
my son. I don't want my son or any of your sons having to go up against
some criminal with any kind of gun, the least of which would be a long
gun that would pierce most of the protection they have.
Let's bring this bill to the floor. Let's get this thing done.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
The Republicans are about to leave town, and I don't know whether to
be happy or sad. Sad because there are so many important issues that we
need to consider here that we are not doing, whether it is gun violence
or dealing with the Zika virus, but happy in the sense that we won't
have to deal with terrible pieces of legislation like the two bills
that are being brought before us under this rule.
The so-called Conscience Protection Act is not about protecting
anybody's conscience. We already have a law that does that. This is
about denying a woman access to abortion services. This is about
empowering a woman's boss to make the decision as to whether or not she
could have access to abortion services.
When the gentlewoman says, ``no, it is not; no, it is not,'' I would
remind her that when you deny someone insurance coverage for a
healthcare procedure, in most cases, that means that you deny them
access because a woman, especially a low-income woman, couldn't afford
those services.
So if you think that a woman's boss ought to be in control of her
health care, then vote for this terrible bill. But I hope a majority of
my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, will see through this
and reject it.
The second bill is this terrible GMO labeling bill. As my colleague
from Vermont (Mr. Welch) said: If you want a labeling bill, then have a
labeling bill. Label it. Make it clear to people. Give consumers the
access to the information that they overwhelmingly want.
It is beyond the ability of the people that run this Congress to give
the people of this country what they want. The vast majority want
transparency, and, instead, we get this GMO bill that is confusing,
that will make it impossible for some consumers to have access to
information about whether or not a product contains GMOs or not.
This is not about the safety or the science of GMOs. This is about
consumers' right to know. I mean, give people the information so they
can make their own decisions.
Who are we in this Congress to deny people the information that they
want?
It is about time we do what the American people want.
Vote ``no'' on the rule. Vote ``no'' on both of these pieces of
legislation. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can finally
have a debate on gun safety.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to remind my colleague--perhaps he has forgotten--that
the House dealt with the Zika crisis and the Zika virus. We sent a bill
over to the Senate, and it was the Democrat Members of the Senate that
prevented that bill from being debated and voted on in the Senate. We
have done our job in the House of Representatives on a bipartisan
basis. We are doing our job in the House of Representatives. I believe
we passed 24 bills in this House on Monday alone. So we are doing our
job, Mr. Speaker. We have problems with our colleagues' counterparts on
the other side of the Capitol.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to say again, the S. 304 does not stop a
woman's choice. It is important, though, for us to understand what is
at stake if we don't pass S. 304, the Conscience Protection Act. Not
only will the State of California be allowed to continue to violate
Federal law, but it is likely that other States will follow suit with
similarly drafted rules and regulations, forcing more and more
churches, religious charities, and employers to decide between honoring
the tenets of their faith and helping their employees by providing
health insurance.
Further, S. 304 allows healthcare providers to file a civil right of
action when they face discrimination by government or subsidiary
agencies. Currently, the only recourse a healthcare provider has
available is to appeal to the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services Office of Civil Rights. Recall that this was the same office
that conveniently reinterpreted the Weldon Amendment, allowing the
California Department of Managed Health Care to force churches to pay
for elective abortions.
Additionally, the Office of Civil Rights has been notoriously slow to
adjudicate complaints. The groups who filed the appeal in the
California case waited more than 2 years for a decision. And a nurse
who was forced to participate in an abortion and then required to
reassemble the parts of a dismembered baby waited 3 years for her
complaint to be resolved. That is unconscionable.
It has become clear that healthcare providers cannot rely on HHS and
the Office of Civil Rights to defend healthcare providers from
discrimination. S. 304 provides this protection and gives these
entities recourse when they choose not to participate in or facilitate
abortion.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, this rule also provides for consideration of a motion to
concur with the Senate amendment to the House amendment to S. 764, GMO
labeling requirements. This bill leverages Congress' authority to
regulate interstate commerce and will establish a uniform standard for
labeling bioengineered foods that is easy for consumers to access and
understand.
This standard provides food manufacturers with regulatory certainty
and a single, national standard with which they must comply, rather
than a patchwork of dozens of State and local regulations that vary
from a complex list of details to no labeling at all.

[[Page H4838]]

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing, though not surprising, to hear my
colleagues criticize the Conscience Protection Act. Congress has a long
history of providing freedom of conscience protections, and this bill
ensures that healthcare providers are protected and can continue
serving their patients, customers, and communities as they have been,
without threat of government coercion or retaliation.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
rule and the underlying bills.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 822 Offered by Mr. McGovern

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney
General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of
firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected
dangerous terrorist. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1076.
____

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________