Providing for Consideration of Senate Amendment to House Amendment to S. National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of Providing for Consideration of S. 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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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 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 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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source