[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.

                          ____________________