tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN July 13, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
for two bills, one dealing with discrimination against health care providers who will not provide abortions, another bill dealing with g.m.o. food labeling. later, a bill barring the u.s. from buying heavy water from iran and completion today on the 2017 interior department spending bill. the eaker: the house will be in order. the prey prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, the reverend malcolm j. bird, jackson memorial a.m.e. zion church, hem steady, new york. the chaplain: let us pray. o god, thou in whom we live and move and have our being, god of our weary ears and god of our silent tears, thou who have spangled the heavens with thy glory, descend now we pray upon the united states of america. grant into our nation the gifts
of tth and justice. imbue our nation and its leaders with the wisdom and courage to speak truth to power in love. even if that power happens to be themselves. grant unto them thy grace that you extend to all, not based upon socio political status, but upon thy omni presence. as you are present from sea to shining sea, be thou our god as we are caused to traverse through our respective districts, engendering hope in oft hopeless situations. our hope and trust, o god, is in thee. we channel in the midst of our various strivingings the words of joseph charles price. it matters not how dark the night, we believe in the coming of morning. may our nation be filled with
thy grace and heavenly ben diction this day and forever more, in thy great and splendid ame we pray, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. mr. langevin: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentlelady from new york, miss rice, is recognized for one minute. miss rice: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to welcome reverend malcolm j. byrd, the pastor of jackson memorial a.m.e. zion church and thank him for leading us in
prayer on the house floor today. i first met reverend byrd one year ago yesterday just a few weeks after nine black men and women were murdered inside mother manual a.m.e. charge in charleston, south carolina. he held a service and presented a patchwork quilt that his children created to send to the congregation. leading us in prayer reverend byrd said that day, oh, god, there is a long road that leads from hempstead to charleston but one thing that makes us closer than the miles th separate us. we are all part of the family of god. today as we find ourselves once again in the wake of tragic violence, we are blessed to have him here with us. he is a man of god, a man of faith, a man of peace and hope. he's also a man of vision, a man who sees america as it is, as it can be, as it must and will be. a patchwork quilt in which people of all colors and creads are sewn together as brothers
and sister united if our common humanity. there is a long road that leads from hampstead and orlando and baton rouge and falcon heights and dallas. there is a long road that leads from hempstead to washington, d.c. i thank god he has traveled that road safely today. i pray we all take his message to heart and never forget no matter what distance lies between us or what walls may divide us, we are all a part of the family of god. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. speaker, i rise today on behalf of the city of dallas and all who call north texas home.
last week our community experienced a horrific tragedy when five police officers were murdered in cold blood and they were gunned down while safeguarding a peaceful rally. my thoughts and prayers continue to be with the families, friends, and fellow law enforcement officers of the five brave men we lost. i also pray for peace, comfort, and for hearts to be healed. the memorial service in dallas yesterday reminds us of what many texans already know. we are a family. while we may not always agree, all americans should have mutual respect for one another and we must have ultimate mutual respect for our constitutional rights first and foremost being life and liberty. god bless dallas. and god bless america.
yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. miss speier: thank you, madam speaker. ever since the sandy hook shooting republicans have told us that the silver bullet solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. after the pulse nightclub massacre, donald trump said it would have been a beautiful sight if people had fired back. so trump's endorsement of combining alcohol with firearms was too extreme even for the n.r.a., they still encouraged people to carry guns to campuses, public parks, and everyplace else. let's talk about the good guys with guns. 12 good guys in dallas law enforcement officers, men and women, trained to shoot, were stopped by one bad guy.
five officers were killed, and seven were wounded. whether it's a security guard or an entire police force, there is no stopping a single bad guy with a military-style assault rifle. if our best trained officers can be thwarted, how can the average shooter stop another shooter? it's time for congress to focus on the needs of our constituents over gun manufacturers' profits instead of flooding the streets with more guns. let's vote on commonsense gun laws. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise in recognition of 60 years of tom ated service by thomas al gear to his community as a volunteer firefighter. since 1956, tom has volunteered to serve the citizens of green
township, erie county, as a member of the coal hose company. as a volunteer firefighter myself, i know how important people like tom are to the people they serve. he he joined the company at the age of 18 when the company was in its earl will i days. he's helped many physicians during his 60 years with the company, including fire chief, deputy fire captain, first lieutenant, and e.m.t. he served in administrative roles. he chaired many fundraising committees and helped to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for the department over the past six decades. tom remains among the leaders in training, hours logged each year both in weekly drills and attending classes to keep his training current. that's 78 years old, tomorrow is still running -- tom is still running emergency calls. i know i speak for his community in applauding his hard work and dedication. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the jamplet california seek recognition? -- does the gentleman from
california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: in the one month since 102 people were shot and 49 killed in orlando, republican leadership in this house has done nothing to help stop the kind of mass gun violence that has claimed the lives of more than 34,000 people in the last 3 1/2 years. no votes have been cast. no bills have been debated. no proposals have even been considered. our side wants background checks and no fly, no buy. so criminals, the dangerously mentally ill, and terrorists can't get guns. if you don't like our ideas, join with us and let's find common ground. gun violence shouldn't be a partisan issue. when deranged gunmen open fire in a nightclub, movie theater, school, or on policemen, they don't care if you're a democrat or republican. let's pull together and address this problem. it's within our power to help
save lives. let's not waste it. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: madam speaker, in he recent weeks speaker of the house paul davis ryan has presented the better way agenda on how to build a more confident america. i am grateful for the speaker promoting a better way to defend america's families and create jobs. recent terrorist attacks at home and overseas confirm what house republicans have warned about for years. that the current foreign policy is failing. to promote peace through strength to protect american families, we need a real plan, one that protects the homeland, defeats terrorism, tackles new threats, and defends freedom around the world. as the chairman of the house armed services subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities, i'm grateful that a better way emphasizes the importance of combating new threats.
each element of a better way presents real solutions for the biggest problems facing our nation. in conclusion, god bless our troops, and may the president by his actions never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. congratulations, prime minister theresa may, for your success for the citizens of the united kingdom. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california eek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, today i rise to speak on the provisions included in the fiscal year 2017 interior appropriations bill to address the california drought. the language is well-intentioned and seeks to alleviate the issues that we californians are facing because of the drought. ms. sanchez: however, we have to take into account all impacts of increased pumping and how it affects our river ecosystems, fishing economy,
and our wildlife associated with the san joaquin river. i support increased pumping to aid those affected by the drought, especially in the central valley if you had gone to see some of those homes. it's really damaging. but we also have to take a look at the long-term impact. we need to look at developing our long-term water sustainability and our infrastructure as we have done in orange county in my home district. where we were able to avoid some terrible effects of this drought because we invested over the last 15 years in water reclamation and recapture, about 90% of the water that we use in my hometown is completely recycled. as i said before, we need to pass drought legislation. and we need to listen to all of the stakeholders. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address
the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. emmer: madam speaker, i rise today to celebrate the anniversary of an outstanding minnesota company that has been providing quality food for the past 75 years. jenny-o-foods markets over 1,500 products to more than 70 countries around the wormed. since the founding in 1940, this company has been recognized as a leader in the turkey industry. jenny-o foods had um humble beginnings which all began when earl started raising turkeys. nine years later he bought a turkey processing plants and the company flourished. it has had nothing but success over the years with the invention of products like the first turkey hot dog, eventually catching the eye of another great minnesota company, hormel foods in 1986. i not only want to congratulate them for their 75 years of success, but i join the great state of minnesota in thanking
them for their contribution to our state and our nation. we wish you nothing but continued success. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. . langevin: madam speaker, last week the education and work force committee unanimously reported h.r. 5587, the strengthening c.t.e. for the 21st century act out of committee. this bipartisan bill re-authorizes the career and technical education act which expired in 2012. i am so proud to be an original co-sponsor and in particular i'd like to thank representative g.t. thompson, the great state of pennsylvania, my good friend and colleague, and co-chair of the c.t.e. caucus for his outstanding efforts to re-authorize these programs. and the program is far better off than where it is because of
his due diligence and the hard work he put into the bill. thanks also to chairman kind and ranking member scott for their commitment to bipartisanship on this critical legislation. as i said it passed out of committee unanimously and when does that ever happen around here these days? h.r. 5587 is a bill we can all be proud of. it aligns skills training with employer demands, allows teachers to gain direct knowledge of workplace kills and ensures all students have access to high quality c.t.e. madam speaker, i urge you to bring this bill to the floor at the earliest opportunity and i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: madam speaker, recently it was revealed that the tech giant facebook may have altered its popular trending news section to suppress conservative views. facebook's c.e.o. promised to make changes. now it has been reported that
facebook removed a viral video that showed how media company now this was editing footage of donald trump to make him seem insensitive and racist. last week a gun range owner in houston, texas, said his facebook page had been blocked after he advertised free concealed handgun classes. if these allegations are true, facebook will not be a credible source of information for the american people. let's hope that facebook will demonstrate it has no bias against conservatives. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. i -- mrs. bustos: thank you, madam speaker. i proudly come from a rural district in the state of illinois. we have some of the best farm land anywhere in the world, and what i would consider some of the hardest workers in america. but too average communitieses like ours have been -- communities like ours have been
left behind or left out. we have had manufacturing jobs that have been sent overseas, we've had access to health care that has been very challenging. net farm income has dropped. and many of our rural communities are without high speed internet, that hurts our businesses and even effects our children doing their homework. even with these challenges, rural america holds tremendous potential. that's why i'm kicking off what i'm calling the 21st century heartland tour. i'm doing this to discusslusions -- solutions to put illinoisans and rural communities back to work, to position ourselves to lead the nation in clean energy, and to support our growers and producers who put food on the table of millions of americans. every single day. madam speaker, let's work together to ensure a strong and thriving 21st century heartland. thank you very much and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition?
without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. bilbray: thank you, madam speaker -- mr. bilirakis: thank you, madam speaker. last week the house passed a comprehensive opioid bill. i'm pleased my medicare part d drug management program was included in this legislation to help address the growing opioid problem within medicare. this measure, which has the support of c.m.s. and is recommended by the inspector general and g.a.o., would leverage a program successfully used in commercial insurance, medicaid and tricare. the growth and commonly prescribed opioids in part d increased by 156% from 2006 to 2014. this part d drug management program will help address this growing opioid problem within the medicaid program while ensuring those who need medications will have access to their prescriptions. i'm proud we could get this done for our seniors and all who are struggling across the country. thank you and i yield back,
madam speaker. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pocan: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to acknowledge and thank head count, a nonpartisan organization that uses the power of music to register voters and promote participation in democracy. they reach young people and music fans where they already are, online and at concerts across the country, from the bands. their message is not about what political party you support or what issues you care about, but instead that as younger voters you must be heard. let's face. it the single greatest determine -- let's face it. the single greatest determining you vote is ther likely age. whether you care about commonsense gun violence protections or global warming or equality for everyone, head count is a platform to help people get heard.
thank you, head count --count.com -- headcount.org for all you do in broadening our democracy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek reck anything -- seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to honor and award st. charles school board member steve spurling and his wife diane with the citizen hero award for acting quickly to protect the life of a woman in distress. on may 3, the two were walking their dog when a woman ran out of her house wloodied, falling on the driveway and calling for help. while the spurling family rushed to aid their distressed neighbor, a man exited the house yelling for the woman before pulling out a gun and shooting five times at the group. reacting quickly and selflessly, mr. spurling tackled shooter from behind, disarmed him and held him down while the police arrived. mr. hultgren: the woman was rushed to a hospital and has recovered from her injuries. steve serves our community by providing educational leadership in both -- and both he and his wife acted courageously to save the life of their neighbor.
the 14th district citizen hero award recognizes exemplary constituents in my district who inspire others by their commendable actions. steve and diane, it's my pleasure to represent you and extend our district's heartfelt gratitude with this award. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rom nebraska seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. ash ash thank you, madam speaker -- mr. ashford: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise today to honor a fellow omahaan. hery tires this september after 38 years of distinguished service to the house of representatives. in 1978, kevin left omaha with former congressman john cavanaugh, with whom he remains friends to this day, and shortly there after joined the clerk's office, where he has worked in the tally section for the past 37 years. 29 as an assistant tally clerk and the last eight as a tally clerk. kevin is a workhorse, not a show horse.
his depth of parliamentary and institutional knowledge is matched only by his love of the institution. he's played a pivotal role in making the legislative process operate smoothly, and his knowledge and guidance will be deeply missed. while kevin's upcoming retirement is a big loss to his colleagues and the house, we wish him and his lovely wife nothing but the best in their next chapter of life. i'm pretty sure most of that chapter will be written on the golf course. with that, i winner them long drives and birdie putts. i might also add that kevin and i played rugby together at creighton university just a few years ago. thank you, kevin, for your outstanding service and for being a remarkable example to your colleagues, of what serving this institution is all about. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mr. steffensen: madam speaker, despite the internet being an integral part of modern
american life, there are still many rural farmers across our nation who do not have access to this essential tool. ms. stefanik: the internet has the power to revolutionize the agriculture sector and north country farmers have shared with me various ways that increased broadband access could provide them with opportunities for innovation and improved agrabills. a dairy farmer who spoke with my office uses broadband to automate feeding plans for his cows. to support our north country farmers, i will be introducing the precision farming act of 2016. this legislation will encourage the construction of rural broadband connections to farms by allowing providers to receive reimbursements for the costs related to construction. furthermore, this legislation would put our nation's farmers first, by prioritizing their loan applications for additional construction. to compete in a 21st century economy, our farmers must have access to broadband technology. and i urge my colleagues to support this important
legislation. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california eek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i just want to bring to light the fact that we are still trying to get two bills passed in the house. how many more innocent lives will be lost before that happens? mrs. napolitano: people, my people, everybody's people, the american people want gun reform. republican colleagues are blocking the vote. but we need to have a voice. no more silence. stop blaming mental health for mass shootings. the fact is, more often they are the victims of -- rather than the perpetrators. it is anger, it is hate, it is racism, the main causes of the mass shootings. reducing mental health stigma would save lives, as 2/3 of gun
deaths are suicides. i encourage those that need help to seek help, reduce self-harm, learn the signs of mental illness, need to focus on prevention and training, especially of police and public on mental health. not more guns. educate youth on how to peacefully resolve problems, conflict resolution through -- and anger management. we must change the culture of guns. violent images are too common in the media and entertainment and video games. learn to have less hatred, more tolerance, and focus on what unites us. allow us a vote. i want to prevent terrorists and others on the no fly list and universal gun control. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is roused for -- is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, since taking office in 2009, president obama and his administration have taken a position in 175 cases
before the supreme court. but the president has only won 79 of those cases. that comes out to just above 45%. mr. bryne: indeed over the course of his presidency the obama administration argued 44 cases before the supreme court, where their position failed to get a single vote. not even the people the president appointed to the court agree with his position. this number stands in stark contrast to the results from president george w. bush who won over 60% of his cases before the court and bill clinton who won 63% of his cases. most of the cases president obama has lost have only one thing in common, the president's view that federal power is virtually unlimited. under this president, citizens must submit their liberty and freedom to whatever the government experts determine is best. the administration believes they can operate above or around the law. madam speaker, the president's record in front of the court is a disturbing trend and something that should alarm
every single american. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. today i rise to talk about an issue that has affected my community in san bernardino very personally. and continues to impact our neighborhoods on almost a daily basis. gun violence. over the past several weeks, americans have stood together to demand action on commonsense measures to reduce gun violence. my office has dealt with full voicemails and has had social media sites and countless letters asking for these commonsense reforms. the message is the same. background checks are basic measures that will make our communities safer while respecting the second amendment rights of responsible gun owners. mr. aguilar: if you are too dangerous to fly on a plane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. madam speaker, these measures
are not controversial, keeping guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists and criminals are basic measures where both democrats and republicans should be able to find common ground. i ask that this chamber remain in session until we vote on this legislation. by foregoing bipartisan legislation to end gun violence, bills our constituents are demanding us to consider, house republicans are playing favor to special interests. we owe the american people a vote. if we're too scared in this body to vote on these commonsense measures out of loyalty to our special interest groups, instead of our own constituents, then we need to reflect on our roles here. thank you so much. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. each year families across the country face difficult decisions about where they can afford to send their children to college and what institution is the best fit for them. students must wade through
massive and often conflicting amounts of information in order to make an informed choice. taking time to fully understand the available data can be an aggravating task that may get put off and ultimately ignored, often with disastrous consequences. i want to thank my colleagues for their support this week of my legislation to help students gain access to the facts they need to make an informed decision about where to pursue higher education. h.r. 3178, the strengthening transparency in higher education act, will begin to streamline the overwhelming maze of information currently provided to students and families at the federal level. it's crucial that we continue to increase transparency in the country's higher education system. this legislation is a positive step forward in that effort. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: madam speaker, last evening we, the members of the democratic caucus, came together in the evening of remembrance to mark the one-month anniversary in honor of the lives of the 49 individuals who were massacred in orlando at the pulse night club. we're about now to leave congress, adjourn for seven weeks, failing in our sacred responsibility to keep the american people safe. during that time, during our recess, about 5,000 americans will die at the hands of guns. too many communities have been stained by the blood of gun violence. congress has done nothing. we have begged and pleaded and implored and argued to bring to the floor responsible gun safety legislation, to do something to honor the lives that have been lost. and yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have refused, have refused to show the courage to stand up and do what's right for the american people. i pray that they find the
courage to do that and that we finally do something to reduce gun violence in this country and to honor the lives that have been lost and to finally leave this chamber knowing that we have responded and done something to respond to the epidemic of gun violence in america. with that i yield. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, this nation was founded by those seeking to escape the coercive forces of governments across europe. this basic freedom is under assault today as radical advocates for abortion are using the coercive forces of federal, state, and local governments to compel pro-life individuals, businesses, and health care providers to act against their deeply held religious convictions in order to keep a job or to hold a
medical license or to operate a hospital clinic or health insurance plan. no one should be forced to violate their deeply held convictions against taking innocent lives. mr. baben: yet the obama administration has simply refused to enforce the current conscience law. most recently in california. with the passage of our bill, pro-life americans will no longer be forced to awe'll to this administration for relief. this bill will enable americans to file suit in court and once and for all end this coercion. i urge my colleagues to vote in support of this very important legislation so that the rights of pro-life americans are restored. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, what will we tell american families when their child is born with
microencephaly caused by the zika virus? mr. deutch: not a hypothetical question. families in puerto rico are already answering it. over 276 travel related cases of zika have been reported in my home state of florida. 43 cases affecting pregnant women. in florida we are on the frontline and we are at risk of local outbreaks. the florida delegation on both sides of the aisle supports funding to prepare for and prevent local infections, but we still don't have a bill. over the seven-week recess while federal, state, and local officials try to prepare for zika without the resources they need, we will do -- we will need to prepare answers for these families. did we do all we could to prevent an outbreak? did we follow recommendations from scientists and infectious disease experts? did we assure women that they don't need to be afraid to become pregnant in my state of florida? i wish we could say that the leadership of this congress put the health and security of american families above
partisan politics. i hope, they better hope it's not too late. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you very much. madam speaker. i rise today to try to do justice to a beautiful poem that was won in a contest, the national contest by ileana jaffe, the contest is why i'm glad america is a nation of immigrants, and her poem is, why we are here. that morning when the sun had risen, my shores, my seas, my hopes, free from prison, the poor, the rich, and all of the foregive, came to me. mr. car denas: go, ask that girl to compare a life of despair to breathe of free air. ask her why are you here? not somewhere over there?
she say to you that long ago her ancestors came here through hail, sleet, and snow, sun rise and sunset, they stayed there until the end, and when my job was finished, their hearts had all mend. i had had many things and most are quite clear, a haven, a refuge, that people hold dear. these waters of mine so brilliant, so light, with hopes of tomorrow, a future so bright. coming from places of sadness and fear, i open my arms and welcome them here. by ileana jaffe, a fifth grader at the jewish school in scottsdale, arizona. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the virgin islands seek recognition? address t ket: walk to the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. plaskett: thank you, madam speaker of the i rise today to recognize clee creaky, the
first female in the virgin islands to be elected to territory wide office after she was elected senator at large in the virgin islands legislature in 1976. this past weekend, the legislature added a conference room on st. john named in her honor. she held key leadership positions on important committees on welfare, health, and labor. aside from her distinguished legacy as a political stalwart, an advocate for less fortunate in her community, she's a nurse, mother, and businesswoman, and she speaks her mind. she's a positive and inspirational role model for caribbean women, for all women. she is my friend and my mentor. i also would like to at this time extend happy birthday wishes to gloria joseph, community organizer, public servant, matriarch, and ph.d. of haut cuisine.
i wish you happy birthday. both these women are ultimate public servants, true renaissance women and true virgin islanders. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. i'd like to express my concern about events that are happening now in brazil. mr. grayson: in brazil, the president was re-elected because a majority of brilliance wanted to pursue her progressive policies further. but shortly after her re-election, some members of the right wing opposition started to question the election results and aided by the conservative media in brazil they accused her of manipulating the state budget to pay for social programs. now they have taken it further than that and beyond mere accusations and they have forced her temporarily out of office by impeaching her and putting her out of power while
those proceedings take place. the interim government is implementing the exact policies that were rejected by a majority of brazilian voters, austerity, cutting social programs, cutting education, cutting housing, cutting health care. these are the things that people wanted, it's what they voted for, and yet the interim government is undermining democracy by denying these things to the people that voted for them. my message is simple, a democracy matters. votes matter. all around the world we are seeing right wingers trying to deny the democratic forces their rightful power for winning elections. in britain we have seen an effort to undermine the results of brexit. in pert gallon the same thing happened when a left wing majority won parliament. here in the united states -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. grayson: this month end. democracy matters. thank you. -- this must end. democracy matters. thank u the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the
speaker. sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on july 13, 2016, at 9:13 a.m. that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 4875. signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. by direction of the rules i ask for its immediate n 822 consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 136, house resolution 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. section 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, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce, and, two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 3, the requirement of clause 6-a of rule 18 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, 016, or july 15, 2016. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for one hour. ms. foxx: thank you, 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.
madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to evise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: 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 amendments to s. 764 g.m.o. labeling requirements. madam speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of s. 304, the conscience protection act. this bill protects rights of conscience for health care providers who choose not to participate in abortion. the bill reinforces current law and makes clear that federal, state, and local governments, includinsubsidiary agencies, cannot discriminate against health care 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 the provision of federal law known as the weldon amendment which provides that states receiving federal funds may not discriminate against health plans based on new decision not to cover or pay for abortions. religious employers in california who o offer group health plans to their employees lodged an objection with the u.s. department of health and human services, which overseas enforcement of the welden amendment. h.h.s. massively and incorrectly reinterpretted the 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. 76 g.m.o. 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. americans would be well served have both s. 30 and s. 764 considered this week and i commend both bills to my colleagues as deserving of their support. and i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, for the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. 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 g.m.o.
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've joined my democratic colleagues in calling upon speaker ryan to hold a vote on two commonsense, bipartisan eces 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. they --ality the very least, we can -- 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 weeks on a republican gun-related legislation. but instead of working with both democrats and republicans on a bipartisan bill, speaker ryan hastily pushed out a toothless n.r.a.-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 hard liners 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 to 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. i predict that the american people will not forget this. 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 very, very weak g.m.o. 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's in the food that they eat. plain and simple. i believe they ought to have that right and that's what today's debate is about. to be clear, today's debate is not about the science behind g.m.o.'s, it is also not about whether g.m.o.'s are good or bad, whether you love g.m.o.'s or hate them, we should all agree that you ought to know if they are in the food that you're feeding your family and .our children . madam speaker, the food and drug administration requires the labeling of thousands of ingredients, many of which have nothing to do with safety or nutrition. for example, the f.d.a. requires mandatory labeling of juice when it's from concentrate. it's just one of the ways we tell people what's in their food and how the made. this legislation -- legislation would require companies to label their products if they contain g.m.o.'s and i strongly support that sentiment. but this legislation, the way it's written, 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's this, a so-called quick response or q.r. code. it was at the behest of big industry that the q.r. code be listed as an option. not what's in the interest of the american consumer, but whereas in the interest of a special -- -- but what's in the interest of a few special interests. i would be comfortable with a word or symbol, but a q.r. code is not something i can support and nobody here should support that. in order to assess the information through the q.r. code, an individual must have a smartphone, 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's frustrating. what good would a q.r. code do if i can't get a data signal using my phone? one in five americans in the united states do not have smartphones.
that includes 50% of americans who are low income and living in rural areas. over 65% of elderly americans. if we end up going down the route of a q.r. 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. this is assuming that they will have access to the internet in the grocery store. that's 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 consider what we call the 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's in their food that they are buying. the debate about g.m.o. labeling is about transparency
and the right of every american to know what's in the food they eat. it's very simple. the best approach would be a clear and easy to understand label or symbol. not some crazy q.r. code that only creates more hassle and confusion. from the very beginning of the debate about g.m.o. labeling, some in the food industry have stuck to two main arguments. they've said that g.m.o.'s are perfectly safe and 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 q.r. 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 costs of changing their packaging. the truth is that the q.r. code will take up more space on their packaging than any symbol or simple written label would, and the q.r. 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 q.r. code. and we know that food companies change labels on their products all the time. jerry greenfield of ben and jerry's ice cream said it is a normal cost of business to change their packaging. campbell's soup has 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 them for all committing to using words on their label and not some kind of confusing q.r. code. the majority of americans favor mandatory g.m.o. labels that are clear, straightforward and easy to understand. wouldn't it be nice, 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're also considering a totally unrelated bill, h.r. 4828, the so-called conscience protection act, which is yet another unconscionable attempt to take away a women's -- a woman's right to health care. under current law hospitals and other health care 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 to 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. 13 times we have gone down a similar road. how can we possibly consider a bill that would allow insurance companies, doctors or health care facilities to substitute their own religious opinions fo 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 right wing 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 the 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 heart beat. for seven 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 with held from the woman. she was simply given two tylenol and sent home unaware that there was no chance that 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. this only puts more lives at risk. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to support it and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from indiana, mrs. walorski. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mrs. walorski: madam speaker, i rise today in strong support of the conscience protection act, a bill i co-sponsored to protect pro-life health care providers from discrimination, doctors, nurses, employers, social service agencies and insurance plans that chose 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. most importantly, it gives victims of discrimination legal recourse to defend themselves. currently it's up to the department of health and human services to enforce the law. that's something this administration has not always been willing to do. the conscience protection act will give pro-life health care providers and employers full conscience protections without loopholes or uncertainty. i urge my colleagues to support this essential bill, to protect life and those who exercise their conscience rights. thank you and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i'm happy to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes.
mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i oppose this closed rule. 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 anti-discrimination and pro-women's health laws with which they do not agree. rather than trying an 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're not happy with the affordable care act that provides contraceptive coverage to millions of women with no out-of-pocket costs. 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're trying to bring religion into the discussion and oppose what they call basic first amendment principles about the freedom of religion. guess what? that's not going to work either. we see your bias, we see your intent, and we will not let you enshrine discrimination into federal law, we will not let you punish women just because you are not pro-choice, that is not going to happen. let's be honestthis is not about religion, it's about abortion and contraception. let's stop the charade. in this case, the bill's sole purpose is to deny access to and create more barriers for women seeking medical procedures that are legal and constitutionally protected. the bill would enable employers and health care companies to override women's personal reproductive health decisions. we've said this before and we'll say it again, women's reproductive health care decisions simply should not be their boss' business.
employers other than religious institutions have no right to impose their religion on their employees. an employer's opinion about the propriety of birth control or abortion has nothing to do if whether their employee can get irth control services. because of the reconciliation opinions of their employer. that is not protecting the reconciliation opinion of the employer. is projecting it onto the employee. religious protection must not be viewed as a shield to protect your own religious liberty but not hurt other people. i strongly encourage my please to -- employees to oppose this bill and i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: predictably, our colleagues is misrepresenting the content of this bill. it does not have any abortion provider who wishes to continue. in the conscience protection act becomes law, abortion will be just as legal and acceptable as it is today. the bill only seeks to ensure that health care providers will not be forced by government to violate their moral or religious convictions. i now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from missouri, mrs. wagner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from missouri is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mrs. wagner: thank you, madam speaker. i'm 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 health care providers choose not to participate in this abhorrent practice. we must protect health care providers who reasonably and conscienceably object to participating in abortion. at a speech in 2009, president obama said clearly, and i quote the president, let us honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, end quote. but that is no longer the practice of this administration. today, across the country, in violation of federal law, churches are being forced to buy health care plans that pay pour abortion and nurses have been forced to assist in abortions. the conscience protection act would stop the government from discriminating against providers that exercise its right of conscience.
it would ensure that those who have been penalized for exercising this right are llowed 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 it now. thank you and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, let's be clear, and i want all 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 health care plans to deny women access to abortion services. i mean, this is outrageous, and i can't believe this kind of bill is coming to this floor. at this point i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. matsui.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. matsui: thank you, madam speaker. 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. i thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. kelly: thank you, madam speaker. madam chairman, i appreciate the time. you know, if the law's already enacted in the religious liberty enshrined in our constitution would have been protected, we wouldn't need to be here. is it an attempt to prevent something? yeah, it is an attempt to protect all americans' rights under our first amendment. it's 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. conscience as defined is the
inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives. impelling one towards the right action. it is the feeling that has done something morally right or wrong. you cannot deny people rights that were enshrined in our constitution and our bill of rights just because it doesn't have 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 who they have sent to represent them. none of us can turn our back on our constitution. none of us can say it is something 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?
why would we limit our schools, our hospitals of religious founding -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kelly: we're going to supersede that. it is protection of the rights of our first amendment. that is something we all took an oath to do and that's what we need to do. i thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, again, if you believe that a woman's boss should make the decision about whether or not she can 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. with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, the distinguished ranking member of the committee on foreign affairs, mr. engel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. engel: thank you. i thank my friend from massachusetts. i think he just put it correctly. look, these are difficult choices. they're moral choices. they are choices from the heart and choices from the gut.
i do think 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 hem for her. the conscience protection act is the latest in a long line of attempt 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 decisions, a concept that shouldn't need 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've said this before and we'll say it again. women's personal health care
decisions are not their boss's business. a boss -- an employer should not have the right to veto a medical decision by a woman. it's 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. so 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. there is something dealing with her body -- this is something dealing with her body, her rights, not her boss's rights. so i urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam
speaker. the charge that this would allow a woman's boss to prevent her from obtaining an abortion is a true outrage. it's 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 three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. smith: i thank my good friend for yielding and thank her for her extraordinary leadership. madam speaker, it's an unconscionable abuse of power, the state of california has forced all insurance plans under its purview and the people and institutions that
pay the premiums to subsidize abortion on demand. numerous favet-based entities filed a lawsuit seeking an 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 dolen said, it's shocking that h.h.s. 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 to my colleagues, this isn't about obamacare and the massive taxpayer funding for abortion embedded, according to g.a.o. in over 1,000 insurance plans on the exchanges which was contrary to what the president had promised, right here in this building, 30 feet away from me in the joint session of congress in 2009. no, this is about private health insurance plans of catholic diocese, 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 conscience clause authored y congressman dave welden of florida is explicit and comprehensive but it is not being enforced. the welden amendment says in pertinent part, it is illegal for any discrimination against a health care entity on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of or refer for abortions. the law's definition of health care entity explicitly includes any health insurance plan. despite the absolute clarity of weldin, 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 speech, mentioned by my colleague from missouri, when he said let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion. this is not honoring our consciences. the conscience protection act of 2016, authored by congressman black, seeks to end discrimination against people, plans and providers for refusing to be involved in the killing of unborn children. the bill says the federal government or any state or local government that receives federal assistance may not be personalized, retaliated against or otherwise discriminated against those who receive to pay for or otherwise participate in abortion. the linchpin of this legislation, the conscience protection act, protects people, insurance plans and other entities from being forced to participate by providing a private right of
action. h.h.s. office of civil rights has failed miserably. we need in this country a remedy that is durable and will provide the protection that people are asking for, especially in california, but really around the country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. . mr. mcgovern: 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're upset with the supreme court decision, roe v. wade, and they're frustrated that, you know, they can't find a way around it. so 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, it leaves the decision about whether or not a woman can have an abortion or not in the hands
of her boss. that's what this does. i want to be clear about one thing. so my colleagues understand this. no taxpayer money, that's the law, can be used to subsidize abortion. that is the law of the land. no taxpayer money. but what this does, it allows 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're a low income woman , you're out of luck. you can try to pay for the services that are affiliated with having an abortion out of pocket, which is almost impossible. there could be complications. we are it is crazy that 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. the reason why we're doing it now is because the republican
national convention is next week. and my colleagues are desperate to appeal to hard liners in their base. that's what this is all about. this will never become law. we shouldn't be doing this on the floor. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: madam speaker, it is not true. conservatives don't ask for bosses to purchase weapons protected under the second amendment. why must my progressive colleagues ask private citizens to pay for the death of a child? i now yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black, the sponsor of the underlying legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mrs. black: i thank my colleague for yielding and, madam speaker, i rise in strong
support of the rule to allow consideration of my bill, senate bill 304, the conscience protection act. the members of this body represent a broad array of views on matters of life and abortion. but surely we can at least agree, all of us agree on this, nobody, nobody should ever be forced to participate in an act of abortion against their will. that's what my legislation is about. simply, 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. and this is wrong. madam speaker, i'm a nurse. i have been so for more than 45 years.
i still keep my license today. i love my job and 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 your 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. the search of the congressional record returns over 1,300 results for the phrase, right to choose. my colleagues across the aisle use tt term often. of course their argument leave noes choice for the unborn child in the -- 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 forced to partner in the practice of abortion. and that's simple >> what -- 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. federal employees are not required to participate in the federal death penalty execution. so, why should abortion be any different? madam speaker, if americans can't abide by their own ly on nces, particular the matter of deeply held beliefs such as this, then we have lost one of our most basic freedoms there is. just to reiterate, which -- reiterate what has already been said, this bill does not change the law on abortion of today. it does not. and 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, we even in
the bill make sure that that access is still there. in the very bill. in the bill language. affect bill does not employers. today we can change this. i urge a yes vote on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, it is frustrating to listen to this debate because apparently facts don't matter. the fact of the matter is, this bill is not needed to protect health care providers from being forced or to provide or participate in provisions of abortion. health care providers already have those protections under current law. what this bill does is it seeks 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. so she pays into health insurance, but her boss decides whether or not, if circumstances arose, that she thought in order to protect her life or for extenuating circumstances that she wanted to have an abortion, whether or not she could have that, whether or not it would be covered. 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 roe vs. to get at wade, which i know they don't like, but that's the law of the land. they're trying to make it so that women cannot have access to safe abortion services if circumstances call for that. so i just find this whole
debate so out of touch with what the facts are. again, existing policies already permit certain entities like hospitals to refuse to perform abortions. most of these policies explicitly permit the refusal on the basis of religious or moral objection. what this does, it goes 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're guaranteed under the constitution. i really think that that is a bad thing for us to be considering on the floor and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. my colleague is correct, this debate is far from the facts. but it's 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 now yield one minute to the gentleman from louisiana, dr. boustany. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for one minute. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. as a physician i took an oath to save lives. to protect lives. as a heart surgeon, i worked day and night to save lives, to protect life at every step of the way. i believe that oath i took way back when i finished medical school means protecting all stages of life. health care providers who share this belief should not be forced to act against their conscience by participating in or facilitating an abortion. current law prevents discrimination against health care providers who do not wish to participate in abortions, but unfortunately the
department of health and human services office for civil rights refuses to enforce this policy. taking years oftentimes to consider complaints of conscience rights violations. that's just wrong. it is wrong. the conscience protection act will provide health care -- the health care 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 job. i urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, today we're dealing with two pieces of legislation in this rule. one that would deny women rights, and another that would deny consumers rights, in terms of this inadequate g.m.o. labeling bill. i would like to ask unanimous
consent to in-- to insert into the record a letter from the consumer union. i would like to also ask unanimous consent to submit into the record a letter opposing this legislation signed by countless consumer and health care organizations. and i would like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a "new york times" editorial entitled, a flawed approach to labeling genetically modified foods. at this time i'd like to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker. vermont's g.m.o. labeling law, act 120, was signed into law in 2014 after years of hearing testimony and debate. it was the first in the nation g.m.o. labeling law, but americans should understand, 64 nations around the world have g.m.o. labeling.
that law was passed by a vote of 28-2 in the vermont senate, and 114-30 in the house. it garnered support from republicans and democrats. the reason it did is labeling is simply giving consumers information that they can use in deciding whether they want to buy the particular product or not. g.m.o. labeling tells consumers whether the product contains g.m.o.'s. some of the opponents oppose this largely because they think consumers aren't entitled to that information. even though they believe that g.m.o.'s are tremendous. but if they want to brag about g.m.o.'s, why don't they want to label g.m.o. products so consumers can make their own decisions? now what we have is a situation where the legislation we're going to be considering says that we will put a label on, but not one you can read. the label that would be ascribed would allow manufacturers to decide to put
on g.m.o. contained herein, that's in english, just like a calorie label or how much salt is in there. but it would also give them the ption of using a bar code, where, when you're shopping, you have to get home to make dinner, you have to take your kid to a sports game, you have to take your iphone, scan the bar code, then go to a website and investigate the website as to whether or not that can of black beans contains g.m.o.'s. who has time to do that? how is that a practical option? the other option for the companies is to put in a 1-800 numbr. where you probably get a call center overseas and you're talking to somebody about the beans that you're buying at the coop in burlington. you know, folks who are busy don't have time to do that. let's get real. this bill that the senate has sent over is, you know, dumb. if you want to label something,
use english. that's all you have to do. we should accept the fact that our consumers, the people we represent, if they want to know something, why not tell them? i applaud campbell soup for deciding that they're just going to put g.m.o. labels on the products and let the consumer decide. let's kill this bill. let's get a national standard that uses english. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate so much my colleague from vermont being concerned about the time that mountain women have for looking at their beans. but i will tell you, we have been eating genetically modified food sie 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've got 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've been doing that since we've had any sense about what was good and what was bad in terms of our food. . it's been going on for a long time and i just love my air loom tomatoes -- heirloom tomatoes and i am looking toward a whole bunch of them. i want to talk about s. 764, the labeling requirement. it provides to food manufacturing by giving them a variety of options to meet disclosure requirements. my 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 q.r. code or an electronic link to identify bioengineered product. they choose 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. i commend this rule and the underlying bill to my colleagues, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i would just point out to the gentlelady that 88% of consumers say they would prefer on package be libbling for genetically modified food rather than a q.r. code.
this bill is trying to appease industry. if you want to know why we're repealing certain industries, just follow the money. that's how so many pieces of legislation in this republican-controlled house are crafted. mr. speaker, i want to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, and if we do i'll 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 f.b.i.'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 and to discuss our proposal, i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. thompson. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, and the gentleman from california is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i urge a no vote on the previous question so our ranking member can bring up his amendment to prevent terrorists, suspected terrorists, folks who are on the f.b.i.'s no-fly list, people who can't fly on an
airplane because the f.b.i. has determined they're too dangerous, too dangerous for 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's wrong. we all know it's wrong. 85% of the american people believe that's wrong and support this measure. we believe that terrorists, that criminals, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill should not be able to have guns, have 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. we're getting ready under the republican leadership to run out of here and take weeks' worth of vacation without addressing this issue. i think it's shameful. we've had 34,000 deaths by someone using a gun since the handy hook tragedy of 3 1/2 years -- sandy hook tragedy of 3 1/2 years.
we've had 1,360 mass shootings since the sandy hook tragedy. we've held 31 moments of silence on this floor for people who have been killed in mass shootings but we've had zero votes on any gun violence prevention legislation. that's wrong. the background check bill that we have before us is a bipartisan bill. as a matter of fact, there's 197 members of congress who are the co-authors of that bill, democrats and republicans. 90% of the american people support it. why won't the republican leadership allow that vote -- that bill to be voted on here on the floor? every day there's 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. you know, it's not a partisan issue. when somebody takes a gun and goes to kill someone, they don't ask if they're democrats
or they're republicans. we need to put the partisan stripe aside and deal with this. we need to come to this floor and work on solutions that will help keep the people who send us to washington, d.c., safe. it's long past time. yesterday right outside of my district, two individuals with ak-47's held up an armored car. they shot one of the guards and they took off -- can i get 30 seconds more? mr. mcgovern: i yield 30 seconds. mr. thompson: they took off in my district where police stopped them. one of them shot at the 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 f.b.i. and local police out there trying to hunt this guy down with an ak-47. this is personal. this could happen in any of our districts. it's 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. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. i'd like to ask my colleague if he is prepared to close. ok. then i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. mr. mcgovern: how much time do i have left, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has two minutes remaining. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, 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're not doing, whether it's gun violence or dealing with the zika virus, but happy in the sense 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 womack sess to abortion services. this is about empowering a woman's boss to make the decision -- denying a woman access to abortion services. this is about empowering a woman's boss to make the decision. the gentlelady says no, it isn't. when you deny insurance coverage for a health care procedure, in most cases that means you denied them access, because a woman, especially a low-income woman couldn't afford those services. if if you think a woman's boss ought to be in control of their 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 this. the second bill, this terrible g.m.o. labeling bill, as my
colleague from vermont, mr. welch, said if you want to have a labeling bill, label. make it clear to people. give consumers the access to the information that they overwhelmingly want, but you know, 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 g.m.o. bill that is confusing, that will make it impossible for some consumers to have access to information about whether or not a product contains g.m.o.'s or not. this is not about the safety or the science of g.m.o.'s. this is about consumers right to know. 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's about time we do what the american people want. vote no on the rule, vote no on both of these pieces of legislation and vote no on the previous legislation so we can
finally have debate on -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to remind my colleague, perhaps he's 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. mr. mcgovern: will you yield? ms. foxx: the gentlewoman will not yield. he gentlewoman will not yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: and we are doing our job in the house of representatives. i believe we passed 24 bills in this house on monday alone. so we're doing our job, mr. speaker. we have problems with our olleagues' counterparts on the
other side of the capitol. mr. speaker -- and i'm going to y again -- s. 304 does not stop a woman's choice. it's important, though, for us to understand what's at stake if we don't pass senate bill 304, the conscience protection act. not only will the state of california be allowed to continue to violate federal law but it's likely 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 tenants of their faith and helping their employees by providing health insurance. further, s. 304 allows health care providers to file a civil right of action when they face discrimination by government or subsidiary agencies. currently, the only recourse a health care provider has available is to appeal to the
u.s. department of health and human services office of civil rights. recall this was the same office that conveniently reinterpreted the weldon amendment, allowing the california department of health care to force churches to pay for elected 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 for more than two years for a decision. and a nurse forced to participate in an abortion and then required to reassemble the parts of a dismembered baby waited three years for her complaint to be resolved. that's unconscionable. it's become clear that health care providers cannot rely on h.h.s. and the office of civil rights to defend health care 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, g.m.o. 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. 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 health care providers are protected and can continue serving their patients, customers and communities that 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. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed.
pursuant to house resolution 820 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5538. will the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pittenger, kindly ake the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5538 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of the interior, environment and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2017, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on wednesday, july 13, 2016, amendment number 5 printed in house report 114-
683 offered by the gentleman from washington, mr. newhouse, ad been disposed of. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 114-683 on which further proceedings were postponed. in the following order. mr. ent number 32 by grijalva of arizona. amendment number 33 by mr. polis from colorado. amendment number 34 by mr. lowenthal of california. amendments number 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 by mr. mchenry -- mcnerney of california. amendment number 41 by mr.
grijalva of arizona. amendment number 43 by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 32 printed in house report 114-683. offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 32 printed in house report 114-683 offered by mr. grijalva of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is
ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]