Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans in this House work awfully hard at doing nothing. We face many crises--crises that demand action. We have a crisis with regard to the Zika virus. We have a crisis in Flint, Michigan, where people have been poisoned by lead-contaminated water. We have a gun violence crisis in this country where massacres have become the new norm. What is the Republicans' response? Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. The only concrete action they have taken is to adjourn the House so they can go on vacation. We shouldn't be going on vacation until we do the people's business. Shame on the Republican leadership for adjourning this House and not taking up gun safety legislation, not addressing the crisis in Flint, Michigan, and not funding the crisis regarding the Zika virus. The people of this country deserve better. Mr. Speaker, I call on you to bring the House back, and let's do our work.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a prime example of why the American people are so frustrated with Congress. This is a deeply, deeply flawed bill. We are told that this is a mandatory GMO labeling bill, but the truth is not really. This bill is a deception. When people think of labels, they expect something that is easily identifiable, that is clear, like a written label. That is not a controversial idea. This calls for a so-called Quick Response Code, whatever that may be, that is confusing and can only be accessed by using a smartphone with Internet access--never mind that many Americans don't have smartphones and many supermarkets don't even get service, thereby making it impossible to get information on GMOs and keeping consumers in the dark about what is in their food. But let's be honest. This is exactly what some in Big Industry want. They want people to be confused. They don't want people to have access to information. And when Big Industry speaks, Congress not only listens, Congress rolls over and gives Big Industry whatever it wants. And let's be clear about another thing. This debate is not about the science regarding GMOs. It is not about whether you love GMOs or hate GMOs. I consume GMOs. My kids consume GMOs. But I still believe that every consumer is entitled to know whether the food they buy contains GMOs. That is what this debate is about. It is about transparency. And for those who think that this ends the debate, that this is it, I have a prediction: You are wrong. People are going to fight to demand for clear, mandatory GMO labeling. They have a right to know what is in their food. The overwhelming majority of the American people, Democrats and Republicans, all favor clear, mandatory GMO labeling. I have got a radical idea. Why don't we give them what they want? Why don't we just put it on the package? It doesn't cost any more. This idea that this is an effort that will raise food prices is ridiculous. This convoluted, complicated labeling system outlined in this bill, if that is not going to raise food prices, then a simple, in plain English listing on food that says ``this contains GMOs'' will certainly not raise food prices. Mr. Speaker, sooner or later we are going to get clear, mandatory GMO labeling. I prefer sooner; and, therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill, and let's give the American consumer what they want.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, we are dealing with two pieces of legislation on this rule: one that would deny women's rights and another that would deny consumers' rights in terms of this inadequate GMO labeling bill. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Consumers Union, which is opposed to the GMO labeling bill. I include in the Record a letter that opposes this legislation and that is signed by countless consumer and healthcare organizations. I also include in the Record a New York Times editorial entitled ``A Flawed Approach to Labeling Genetically Modified Food.'' Consumers Union, Policy & Action From Consumer Reports, Yonkers, NY, July 12, 2016. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congresswoman Slaughter: Consumers Union, the policy and mobilization arm of Consumer Reports, urges you to vote no on S. 764, which includes a bill by Senator Roberts and Senator Stabenow related to the disclosure of genetically engineered (GE) food. This bill will not provide consumers with the clear information about GE food that nine out of ten consumers have repeatedly said they want. The legislation would preempt state laws requiring clear, on-package labeling of GE food, replacing them two or more years from now with an ineffective federal disclosure program to be established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Significant questions have been raised about this program's scope. We have several specific concerns with S. 764. First, this bill, which allows USDA to take two years to develop implementing rules, undermines GE labeling occurring in the marketplace. Labels indicating that a food is produced with genetic engineering are already appearing on store shelves across the country, in compliance with duly enacted state labeling requirements. S. 764 would invalidate laws in states including Vermont, Alaska, Connecticut, and Maine, and produce a legal vacuum for at least two years while USDA writes federal rules. Second, the definition of ``bioengineering'' is unclear, and will be subject to interpretation by the Secretary of Agriculture. As a result, there is an active and unresolved dispute about to what extent S. 764 includes or excludes many GE food products from the bill's requirements. This lack of clarity deeply concerns Consumers Union, as we believe that the regulations, should this bill become law, should be very broad in scope. There are other significant problems with the bill's coverage. For example, while the bill does cover some products containing both GE ingredients and meat, it specifically exempts any food where meat is the main ingredient, even if the food product contains other ingredients that are genetically engineered. Third, S. 764 allows companies to employ methods of disclosure that are difficult to use, are not available to all consumers, and put rural, older and low income consumers at a disadvantage. The bill allows for disclosure via QR codes, designed to be scanned by a smartphone. Scanning a QR code may not be feasible for numerous consumers who are unfamiliar with the technology or who lack a smartphone, as three out of four older Americans and about half of rural residents do. As QR codes are already used for many purposes on packages, their presence is not a flag--it does not constitute a de facto or easily recognizable indication that a product contains GE ingredients. Consumers express a clear preference for labels visible to the naked eye. Nearly nine out of ten in a recent survey favored printed, on-package information over scannable bar codes for labels indicating whether food at the grocery store contains GE ingredients, and only 8% preferred the scannable code. Other methods in the legislation that do not involve scannable codes would be significantly more difficult for consumers to use. Navigating a corporate website or dialing a customer call center would each require consumers to go through a multi-step process simply to determine if a food contains GE ingredients. While Consumers Union agrees with the goal of establishing a uniform national standard for disclosure of GE food ingredients, this bill does not accomplish that goal. In fact, it does the opposite--prohibiting states from exercising their ability to protect consumers through labels while failing to create a credible, clear, unambiguous federal labeling requirement. Furthermore, this bill creates hurdles for consumers to determine quickly and easily while shopping if a product contains GE ingredients. Consumers have said overwhelmingly that they want GE food to be labeled as such, and states have responded to their requests. The House should not disregard these views by eliminating state laws relating to GE food labeling and replacing them with a vague program that gives USDA excessive latitude in implementation. We therefore urge you to vote no on S. 764, and instead encourage you to continue working toward a uniform solution that serves the interests of both food producers and consumers. Sincerely, Jean Halloran, Director, Food Policy Initiatives.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. The Republicans are about to leave town, and I don't know whether to be happy or sad. Sad because there are so many important issues that we need to consider here that we are not doing, whether it is gun violence or dealing with the Zika virus, but happy in the sense that we won't have to deal with terrible pieces of legislation like the two bills that are being brought before us under this rule. The so-called Conscience Protection Act is not about protecting anybody's conscience. We already have a law that does that. This is about denying a woman access to abortion services. This is about empowering a woman's boss to make the decision as to whether or not she could have access to abortion services. When the gentlewoman says, ``no, it is not; no, it is not,'' I would remind her that when you deny someone insurance coverage for a healthcare procedure, in most cases, that means that you deny them access because a woman, especially a low-income woman, couldn't afford those services. So if you think that a woman's boss ought to be in control of her health care, then vote for this terrible bill. But I hope a majority of my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, will see through this and reject it. The second bill is this terrible GMO labeling bill. As my colleague from Vermont (Mr. Welch) said: If you want a labeling bill, then have a labeling bill. Label it. Make it clear to people. Give consumers the access to the information that they overwhelmingly want. It is beyond the ability of the people that run this Congress to give the people of this country what they want. The vast majority want transparency, and, instead, we get this GMO bill that is confusing, that will make it impossible for some consumers to have access to information about whether or not a product contains GMOs or not. This is not about the safety or the science of GMOs. This is about consumers' right to know. I mean, give people the information so they can make their own decisions. Who are we in this Congress to deny people the information that they want? It is about time we do what the American people want. Vote ``no'' on the rule. Vote ``no'' on both of these pieces of legislation. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can finally have a debate on gun safety. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just point out to the gentlewoman that 88 percent of consumers said they would prefer on-package labeling for genetically engineered food rather than some QR code. Again, what this bill is about is trying to appease industry. I would say to my friends, if you want to know why we are appealing to certain industry, just follow the money because that is how so many pieces of legislation in this Republican-controlled House are crafted. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. And if we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the bipartisan no fly, no buy legislation, which would allow the Attorney General to bar the sale of firearms and explosives to those on the FBI's terrorist watch list. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is frustrating to listen to this debate because, apparently, facts don't matter. The fact of the matter is that this bill is not needed to protect healthcare providers from being forced to provide or to participate in the provisions of abortion. Healthcare providers already have those protections under current law. What this bill does is to seek to empower a woman's boss to decide whether or not she can have access to abortion services--a woman's boss. By the way, the health insurance that is being provided is not taxpayer-funded health care; it is health insurance that the woman herself pays into. She pays into health insurance, but her boss decides--if circumstances arose in which she thought, in order to protect her life or in extenuating circumstances, that she wanted to have an abortion--whether or not she could have that, whether or not it would be covered. That is what this is. This is about trying to deny women--in this case, mostly low-income women--the ability to have access to abortion services. It is really kind of an underhanded attempt by my colleagues to get at Roe v. Wade, which I know they don't like. But that is the law of the land. They are trying to make it so that women cannot have access to safe abortion services if circumstances so call for that. I just find this whole debate to be so out of touch with what the facts are. Again, existing policies already permit certain entities, like hospitals, to refuse to perform abortions, and most of these policies explicitly permit the refusal on the basis of religious or moral objection. What this does is to go a step further. It seeks to make it almost impossible for poor women in particular to be able to have access to the rights that they are guaranteed under the Constitution. I really think that this is a bad thing for us to be considering on the floor. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this closed rule, which provides for consideration of S. 764, legislation to create, in my view, inadequate GMO labeling requirements, and S. 304, yet another Republican attack on women's health. Both pieces of legislation are being rushed to the floor this week by the Republican leadership as they ignore urgent calls from the American people for action on a number of pressing public health crises like gun violence and the Zika virus. Speaker Ryan promised a new way of doing business in this House when he became Speaker, but we continue to see more of the same broken promises and failed leadership. During the past several weeks, I have joined my Democratic colleagues in calling upon Speaker Ryan to hold a vote on two commonsense, bipartisan pieces of legislation that are overwhelmingly supported by the American people: the no fly, no buy bill, and legislation to expand and strengthen our background check system. Communities in my home State of Massachusetts and across our country are raising their voices and coming together to demand that Congress do something, not hold more moments of silence but actually take action. At the very least, we can keep guns out of the hands of criminals and suspected terrorists. We have that power to do something about that, and, yet, the Republican majority continues to sit on their hands and be indifferent in the face of the tragedies that we read about each and every day in this country. Recognizing this call for action, Speaker Ryan announced on June 30 that the House would vote during the coming week on Republican gun- related legislation. But instead of working with both Democrats and Republicans on a bipartisan bill, Speaker Ryan hastily pushed out a toothless, NRA-written and -backed bill that would do nothing to keep Americans safe. But even more frustrating, but sadly not surprising, is the fact that even this bill was too much for some of the hardliners on the Republican side. So, instead of answering the call of the American people, eager for Congress to finally act to disarm hate and help prevent gun violence, Speaker Ryan has canceled any votes on gun safety legislation. It is really a sad situation, Madam Speaker. One month after 49 lives were lost in Orlando to an act of hate and senseless gun violence, Speaker Ryan is ready to adjourn the Congress for the rest of the summer, failing to take any action at all to protect the American people and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and suspected terrorists. Americans deserve better from their leaders, and I predict that the American people will not forget this. But, look, we shouldn't be surprised. This is just the latest in a string of broken promises and failed action from this Republican majority and its leadership. This week, instead of addressing the pressing issues I previously mentioned, the House will be voting on a weak--on a very, very weak-- GMO labeling bill and yet another piece of legislation that attacks a woman's right to choose. Every American has a fundamental right to know what is in the food that they eat, plain and simple. I believe they ought to have that right, and that is what today's debate is about. To be clear, today's debate is not about the science behind GMOs. It is also not about whether GMOs are good or bad. Whether you love GMOs or hate them, we should all agree that you ought to know if they are in the food that you are feeding to your family and your children. Madam Speaker, the Food and Drug Administration requires labeling of thousands of ingredients, additives, and processes, many of which have nothing to do with safety or nutrition. For example, the FDA requires mandatory labeling of juice when it is from concentrate. It is just one of the ways we tell people what is in their food and how it is made. This piece of legislation would require companies to label their products if they contain GMOs, and I strongly support that sentiment. But the way this legislation is written, it provides three options for labeling: words on the package, which makes sense; a symbol to be developed by USDA, which makes sense; but then there is this, a so- called quick response, or QR, code. It was at the behest of big industry that the QR code be listed as an option, not what is in the interest of the American consumer but what is in the interest of a few special interests. Now, I would be much more comfortable with a bill that requires either words or a symbol, but a QR code is something that I cannot support. Nobody here should support that. In order to access the information through the QR code, an individual must have a smartphone and must have access to the Internet. The reality is that not every American has access to a smartphone or the Internet. Look, I don't get reception at a local grocery store here in D.C. just a couple of blocks from where we are here in the U.S. Capitol. It is frustrating. What good would a QR code do if I can't get a data signal using my phone? One in five Americans in the United States does not have a smartphone. That includes 50 percent of Americans who are low-income and living in rural areas and over 65 percent of elderly Americans. If we end up going down the route of a QR code, all of these people will be prevented from accessing the information that this bill is supposed to make available to all consumers. Even if someone has a smartphone, they will have to scan every single item they purchase in order to obtain the desired information, and this is assuming they will have access to the Internet in the grocery store. That is anything but a quick response. It is a bad idea. It is a bad idea. It is an intentional measure to deny consumers information. We considered what we call the DARK Act on this House floor a few months ago. This is the son of the DARK Act. It keeps people in the dark about what is in their food that they are buying. The debate about GMO labeling is about transparency and the right of every American to know what is in the food they eat. It is very simple. The best approach would be a clear and easy-to-understand label or symbol, not some crazy QR code that only creates more hassle and confusion. From the very beginning of the debate about GMO labeling, some in the food industry have stuck to two main arguments. They have said that GMOs are perfectly safe and that it would cost far too much for them to add a symbol or words to their packaging. But once they came up with the idea to put a large QR code on their packaging that they hope consumers will just simply ignore or not be able to access, they suddenly dropped their complaints about the financial cost of changing their packaging. The truth is that the QR code will take up more space on their packaging than any symbol or simple written label would, and the QR code is going to have to include wording as well. It would be so much easier and better for consumers for the food industry to just use wording or a symbol and not this complicated, confusing QR code. We know that food companies change labels on their products all the time. Jerry Greenfield of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream said that it is a normal cost of business to change their packaging. Campbell Soup is committed to including words on their packaging and has said that in doing this, there will not be an increase in food prices. I want to thank Campbell's as well as Mars and Dannon for all committing to using words on their label and not some kind of confusing QR code. The majority of Americans favor mandatory GMO labels that are clear, straightforward, and easy to understand. Wouldn't it be nice if--and I know this is a radical idea in this Congress--but wouldn't it be nice if, for once, this Congress actually did what the American people want? Keeping our constituents in the dark should not be tolerated. And, therefore, this bill should be soundly defeated by Democrats and Republicans alike. Madam Speaker, we are also considering a totally unrelated bill, H.R. 4828, the so-called Conscience Protection Act, which ironically is yet another unconscionable attempt to take away women's right to health care. Under current law, hospitals and other healthcare providers can already refuse service to an individual based on the practitioner's own moral objection. But this legislation would take this a step further and actually permit the withholding of medical information about a patient's condition if the physician believes that such information could potentially lead to an abortion. Bosses would be permitted to impose their own religious beliefs across their entire company by withholding abortion services on employer-sponsored health plans. It is not an employer's decision what type of medical care is needed by their employees. Women have the same rights to access health care as men do, and no boss should be able to deny them that right. This will be the House Republicans' 13th vote to attack women's health care in this Congress alone. Thirteen times we have gone down a similar road. How can we possibly consider a bill that would allow insurance companies, doctors, or healthcare facilities to substitute their own religious opinions for actual medical information? Every woman should be able to trust that, when they go to their doctor, they are receiving all the facts and information that they need to make their own health decisions. Encouraging doctors to withhold vital information from women about their health is outrageous and incredibly dangerous. Such a reckless bill has no place in Congress. This bill is nothing more than the latest attempt by House Republicans to appeal to their extreme rightwing base. This legislation does not include any exemption in the case of rape, incest, or endangering the life of the woman and would preempt any State law that does allow for the coverage of abortion. Madam Speaker, we have countless women sharing their stories of how these types of laws have had devastating and tragic effects on them. One woman's water broke at 20 weeks prematurely, and doctors determined that the fetus would not survive birth. The Catholic hospital she was at refused to perform an abortion since the fetus still had a heartbeat. For 7 weeks, this woman had to carry a fetus in her with the knowledge that it had no chance of survival. It wasn't until she was suffering from severe hemorrhaging that a hospital would finally induce labor. The baby died almost immediately after birth, as doctors expected. Another woman's water broke prematurely at 18 weeks. She was rushed to the nearest hospital, which was a Catholic hospital. Doctors knew that the fetus was no longer viable and would die immediately upon birth. However, this information was withheld from the woman. She was simply given two Tylenol and sent home unaware that there was no chance her child would survive birth. The woman returned twice more, each time with severe bleeding, and it was only at the end of the second visit as they were sending her home, she went into labor and gave birth. The baby died within hours, as the doctors expected. Women's health must always come first, and this only puts more lives at risk. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to support this rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let's be clear, and I want all of my colleagues to be clear on this issue. This bill would allow a woman's boss to decide whether or not she could have an abortion--her boss-- because this bill allows employers who offer healthcare plans to deny women access to abortion services. This is outrageous, and I can't believe that this kind of bill has come to this floor. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, again, if you believe that a woman's boss should make the decision about whether or not she could have access to abortion services, then you support this bill. I happen to think that a woman should make that decision on her own. It should be her decision and not the decision of her boss. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let's be honest with one another. What this is all about here is that some of my friends on the other side believe that abortion should be illegal all across the country, that no woman should have the right to abortion services. They are upset with the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade, and they are frustrated that they can't find a way around it. This is what this is about: trying to deny women access to these kinds of services through maneuvers that are in this bill. It is absolutely true that what this legislation does is to leave in the hands of her boss the decision about whether or not a woman can have an abortion or not. That is what this does. I want to be clear about one thing so my colleagues understand this. No taxpayer money-- that is the law--can be used to subsidize abortion. That is the law of the land: no taxpayer money. What this does is allow an employer who doesn't agree that abortion should be legal the ability to provide health insurance that doesn't cover it. So, if you are a low-income woman, you are out of luck. You could try to pay for the services out-of-pocket that are affiliated with having an abortion, which is almost impossible, and there could be complications. It is crazy that we are here, debating a bill like this that would basically remove a woman out of this equation. We have better things to do on this House floor than this bill. Let's also be clear in that the reason we are doing it now is that the Republican National Convention is next week, and my colleagues are desperate to appeal to the hard-liners in their base. That is what this is all about. This will never become law, and we shouldn't be doing this on the floor. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in the Spring 2016 edition of ReVista Magazine, Gene Palumbo has written a beautiful remembrance of Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero, who was assassinated in 1980 and recently beatified in May 2015 in a moving ceremony that I was privileged to attend. I have known Gene Palumbo for over three decades. He first began reporting on the war in El Salvador in 1980, when he moved to El Salvador to continue covering the civil war over the next twelve years. I remember speaking to him frequently when I traveled to El Salvador during those turbulent times, and I have always valued his insights and knowledge of the people, institutions and internal dynamics of that country. Gene has reported for the New York Times, National Public Radio, the Canadian Broadcasting Company, and most frequently, for the National Catholic Reporter. He teaches at the Casa de la Solidaridad, a semester-long study abroad program for U.S. university students in San Salvador. Gene's reporting continues to inform and inspire me. This moving tribute to Archbishop Romero reflects the hope Gene continues to have in El Salvador's future. I urge all my colleagues to read and reflect on the life of the martyred and blessed Oscar Romero and the dedication of Gene Palumbo, who continues to write about the challenges facing the Salvadoran people. Remembering Romero: ``God Passed Through El Salvador'' (By Gene Palumbo) San Salvador.--Fr. Paul Schindler remembers the day when Oscar Romero sat beside him, trembling. Romero knew he wasn't among friends. The scene was a clergy meeting in early 1977, and many of the priests were furious: a man they'd clashed with--Romero--had just been named as the new archbishop. As the meeting was ending, Romero--who hadn't yet been installed--was asked if he'd like to say a few words. For all Schindler knew, they would be the last words he'd ever hear from Romero. Discouraged at the prospect of working under someone he was unsure of, Schindler had told his bishop back in Cleveland that he'd decided to return home after eight years of parish work in El Salvador. ``He walked to the front of the room and began to speak,'' said Schindler, ``and after a half hour, I said to myself, `I'm not going anywhere.' '' It was Schindler's first glimpse of something that, until then, had been unknown to him and many others: Romero had begun to change. Earlier, in his years as an auxiliary bishop in San Salvador, many had regarded him as too docile, too accepting of a social order which, they felt, cried out for change. Then, in 1974, he was named bishop of Santiago de Maria, a rural diocese where government repression was widespread, and where, while Romero was bishop, the first massacres of peasants took place. His three years there affected him deeply. Those were the years when Eva Menjivar came to know him. She was one of many nuns who, in the 1960s, left their convents in San Salvador and went to work in rural parishes that had no priests. She was assigned to Ciudad Barrios, the small town in eastern El Salvador where Romero was born and grew up. The town was located in the Santiago de Maria diocese, and by the time Romero was named bishop there, Menjivar and her fellow sisters had catechetical and literacy programs underway, and were offering job training in sewing and auto mechanics. Menjivar says that when people invited Romero to visit their far-flung hamlets, he almost always accepted. She recalls an occasion when residents of one of those hamlets staged a play for him, a play they had written about several Gospel parables. Afterward, they spoke about what the parables meant to them. At the end they turned to Romero and--as one might ask an expert--said, tell us what these parables really mean. His reply, Menjivar recalls, was, ``I have nothing to add. I've learned more about the Bible today than I did when I studied it in the seminary in Rome.'' ``We had never seen a bishop draw near to the people the way he did,'' says Menjivar. ``He'd greet them all, try to speak with them all, and when they had questions for him, he was happy to try to answer them.'' Schindler's experience was similar. ``Whenever I'd invite him--and not just to the main church, but to the rural villages--he would come. He was always there with the people. That was his whole thing: to walk with them, to feel with them, to inspire them.'' Menjivar recalls the sisters' monthly retreats with Romero, and the time in late 1976 when, informed that the National Guard had arrested two teenage catechists in Ciudad Barrios, he went there immediately to demand their release. To ensure that they wouldn't be re-arrested, he took them back to Santiago de Maria where he listened to their accounts of being tortured. Menjivar was later transferred to a parish near the town of Aguilares. There she worked with Jesuit Fr. Rutilio Grande, whose sainthood process is now underway. On the evening of March 12, 1977, she was at Mass when she was handed a note saying that Grande had disappeared. She went straight to Aguilares and, upon arriving, learned that he had been murdered along with an elderly campesino and a teenager. Grande and Romero had become close friends in the late 1960s, when both were living at the seminary in San Salvador. When Romero was named bishop in 1970, he asked Grande to preside at his installation ceremony. In the following four years--up until the time he left for Santiago de Maria--Romero had bitter disputes with priests in the archdiocese, and when, to their dismay, he was named archbishop in 1977, it was Grande who stood up for him. ``Rutilio said to us, `Yes, he's conservative. But he's honest, and he's someone you can work with' '' said Fr. Pedro Declercq, a Belgian missionary whose work with grass-roots Christian communities led to the bombing of his parish. Declercq didn't have to wait long to see how much Romero had changed. They'd had an ugly falling out in 1972, when his parishioners invited Romero to visit them to say Mass and explain why he had justified, on behalf of the bishops conference, a military invasion of the National University. The army had wounded some people, arrested others, and evicted people whose homes were on the university's campus. The discussion between Romero and the parishioners began at the homily, but quickly turned into a shouting match, with Declercq finally tearing off his vestments and saying the Mass was over. When Romero returned to San Salvador as archbishop, he visited the parish again. As recounted by Sister Noemi Ortiz in Maria Lopez Vigil's Monsenor Romero: Memories in Mosaic, [Romero] brought up [the earlier incident] as soon as he got there. ``We couldn't even celebrate the Eucharist that afternoon . . . We were insulting each other. . . . Do you remember? I remember it well and today, as your pastor, I want to say that I now understand what happened that day, and here before you I recognize my error. ``I was wrong and you were right. That day you taught me about faith and about the Church. Please forgive me for everything that happened then.'' Well, all of us, young and old, started crying . . . We broke into applause, and our applause melted into the music of the party. . . . All was forgiven. On the night of Grande's death, Menjivar was sitting beside his corpse, using a towel to absorb the blood that was trickling out, when Romero arrived at the parish. She said Romero approached the corpse and, after standing in silence for several moments, said, ``If we don't change now, we never will.'' Jesuit Fr. Jon Sobrino, a prominent liberation theologian, was at the parish that night, and answered the door when Romero knocked. Earlier Romero had criticized Sobrino's writings on Christology; later, as archbishop, he would consult Sobrino when preparing his pastoral letters. Sobrino says that after Romero himself was murdered, ``people began speaking of him as an exceptional person and Christian. In the funeral Mass we held for him at the UCA (Central American University), Ignacio Ellacuria said, `In Archbishop Romero, God passed through El Salvador' The people spontaneously proclaimed him a saint'' (In 1989, Fr. Ellacuria, along with five other Jesuits and two women, was murdered at the UCA.) When Pope Francis ratified Romero's status as a martyr, Schindler said, ``The people in the parish have been waiting and waiting for this. They hold him as a saint, and they've always held him as a saint, and now that the pronouncement has been made, they're going to be overwhelmed.'' Menjivar said that when she heard the news, ``I felt great joy--and at the same time, I thought to myself, I hope this will be the occasion for those who killed him to be converted.''

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, June 17 marks the fourth anniversary of the arrest of Saudi Arabian blogger Raif Badawi. He is a prisoner of conscience who has been sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for his writings. These days, Raif is not doing well. Recently, he resorted to a hunger strike to protest his lack of access to medical care, which, thankfully, he is receiving now, but his family remains extremely concerned for his health. During the holy month of Ramadan, King Salman pardoned many prisoners. His Majesty should also pardon Raif and Raif's former lawyer, Waleed Abulkhair, a human rights advocate who is serving a 15- year sentence for crimes such as a lack of respect for authorities and creating an NGO without permission. It is ridiculous. I understand that Saudi Arabia is an ally, Mr. Speaker, but the United States must not be silent while these men sit in prison. Saudi Arabia will not achieve security or stability by repressing peaceful dissent.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of Eugene Liscomb, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence and never received a moment of action on this House floor.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of Rigoberto Jose Castillo, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on this House floor.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of Devin Hamb, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on the House floor.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize Wade Henderson for his leadership and decades-long commitment to civil and human rights. I have been privileged to know Wade for over 30 years, having worked together on immigration and refugee issues when I was a congressional aide with Congressman Joe Moakley (MA). He has always been an advocate for and champion of the most vulnerable among us, and he was a generous mentor to me on the importance of protecting and advancing human rights. On July 19th, the Coalition on Human Needs will honor Wade for his years of extraordinary leadership, advocacy and organizing. He is a giant of the civil rights movement, mentioned--rightfully so--alongside Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and my friend and colleague, Congressman John Lewis. Since 1996, Wade has led the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (later named The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights), and he has made it one of the most effective advocacy organizations for civil rights and human rights in America. During my years in office, I have been proud to work with The Leadership Conference under Wade's leadership on many issues of mutual interest and concern. Under his tenure, The Leadership Conference has worked to secure the rights of women, communities of color, ex- offenders, people with disabilities, and the LGBTQ community. He has fought tirelessly to meet the needs of low-income people, recognizing that freedom from want is a human right. He believes and fights to make sure that everyone is included in the rights and benefits of our democracy, that all have a place at the table. So much of this is now possible today because of Wade, his commitment and dedication. As the President and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Wade has been a constant source of trusted leadership, an unending recipient of our admiration, and an enduring guide on our path toward making this a more just and equal nation for all. It is my honor today to recognize Wade Henderson for his dedication and skill and to thank him for all he has done on behalf of justice and on behalf of our nation. I thank him for his service, and I wish him nothing but the best in his well-deserved retirement.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.