4 ms·

>The provision was dropped because it was inserted in private 3 years ago and has never been subject to public debate I've heard about this law before (so it's

• jschwartzi 7y ago
  Most of these are riders on the appropriations bills because the congressperson in question knows there's no other way to get their pet ideology past the house. For example if this ban were just a bill it probably wouldn't make it past the committee. But by attaching it as a rider to the appropriations bill they make sure that anyone voting against the rider looks like they're voting against funding the federal government.
• rayiner 7y ago
  There was nothing "closed door" about it. Congress held a contemporaneous hearing on the issue: https://news.feinberg.northwestern.edu/2015/06/mcnally-testifies-on-gene-editing-at-congressional-hearing https://news.feinberg.northwestern.edu/2015/06/mcnally-testi.... It was included in house bundle of amendments: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2029/text/eah https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2029.... That set of amendments then had to be reconciled between the house and senate versions before it was ultimately voted on. It made sense to include it in a budget bill, because the ban only precludes using federal funding to do such experiments.