Marsha Blackburn

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black), one of the authors of this legislation and the primary sponsor. I thank her for the excellent job that she does on all of the pro-life issues that affect not only our State, but our country.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming), the author of this legislation and the primary cosponsor.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the majority leader of the House.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler). I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on life issues in this body.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), the Speaker of the House. (Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the time remaining on each side?

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 822, I call up the bill (S. 304) to improve motor vehicle safety by encouraging the sharing of certain information, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting a motion to recommit on S. 304 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, Congress has a long history of providing strong, bipartisan conscience and freedom protections consistent with our founding principles and the Constitution. It is about fairness. It is a cornerstone of our Constitution, which is built upon individual rights and liberties. Look no further than the Clinton administration to find evidence of unity when it comes to conscience exemptions. President Clinton built conscience protections into managed care plans for Medicaid and Medicare regarding referrals. In 1977, as part of the Balanced Budget Act, almost identical conscience protections were applied to Medicare Choice Plans. The conference report that included these exemptions was widely supported by Democratic lawmakers like now-Vice President Biden, now-Secretary of State Kerry, and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, to name a few. In 1998 and again in 1999, the Clinton administration took the initiative to add two separate conscience protections to the Federal employees health benefit program. Many of these protections have been renewed annually by Presidents Clinton and Bush and, yes, by President Obama. One of these protections is the Weldon amendment, a longstanding conscience safeguard in appropriations law. This protection provides that States and localities receiving Federal funds may not discriminate against a healthcare entity on the basis that they do not ``provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.'' Troublingly, those encountering discrimination cannot even look to the Office for Civil Rights for help. The Office for Civil Rights within HHS recently reinterpreted existing law to find a California mandate directing all health insurers to remove coverage exclusions and limitations for elective abortions to be consistent with the Weldon amendment. Americans should not have to rely on the whim of attorneys at HHS to be protected from discrimination. This is why we are here today--to discuss fairness, to protect Americans' rights. Here is what the Conscience Protection Act does: First, the bill reaffirms the protections that are found in the Weldon amendment; Second, the bill gives discriminated individuals and entities their day in court through a private right of action; and Third, the bill clarifies that nothing--nothing--in the legislation prevents providers from voluntarily electing to participate in abortion or makes changes to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. The simple intent of this bill is to stop the government from unfairly coercing individuals and entities to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions. Consider the examples of churches in California--like Skyline Church in La Mesa and Faith Baptist Church in Santa Barbara--that are currently being forced by the State to cover all legal abortion in their healthcare plans. Or the case of a New York nurse, Cathy DeCarlo, who was forced to take part in a dismemberment of 22-week- old unborn child. Cathy literally had to count the pieces of the unborn child, against her objection to abortion. Her lawsuit was dismissed because the conscience law lacks a private right of action. Madam Speaker, this is why we need the Conscience Protection Act: for Foothill Church in Glendora; for Alpine Christian Fellowship in El Cajon; for the 12 New Jersey nurses who stood up to their employer for requiring them to train for and participate in abortion; and for Cathy DeCarlo, who deserves her day in court. This is why we need this legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on S. 304.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition. I want to begin by saying I think the committee has done an amazing job with consistently making reductions in what they are spending. It is appropriate that we do that because we are $19.3 trillion in debt. My amendment is a very simple reduction in spending. It is a penny out of a dollar--1 percent--across the board. I know it is not popular. I know everybody says it goes too far. But this will save us $321 million--of course, not a lot when you look at the total budget, but it is very appropriate that we begin to take these steps. I think it is so interesting talking about Ronald Reagan and how he approached things. He would always say: Let's take a little bit, a few steps at a time and begin to get behind some of this and get our economy and get our government back in shape, right-size it. That is exactly what he did, and it paid off for our country with economic growth, making certain that our economy was growing, and that our revenues were growing. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, since that time, we have seen our country doesn't have a revenue problem. What we have is a spending problem. What we have is a priority problem. What we fail to do time and time again is to realize that the taxpayers tell us they are overtaxed, our government is overspent, and they want us to consistently make as many spending reductions as we possibly can. So I come, once again, to the floor with this 1 percent across-the- board spending cut. What it will do is to make that reduction of another $321 million to build on the success the committee has already shown with coming $64 million below the 2016 enacted levels. They are to be commended for that. But let's get in behind it. Let's compound these savings and begin to get our fiscal house in order. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have heard every excuse that there is--always do--and I know that spending reductions are not popular around here. I get it. I know it. But let me tell you what I think also is not proper. I think that it is immoral for us to spend money that we don't have-- it is not our money; it is taxpayer money--and to spend it on programs that our constituents don't want. I think it is also immoral for us to not get our spending under control and to pass along all this debt to our children and our grandchildren. Just think about it. My grandsons, who are 7 and 8 years old, by the time they begin paying taxes, these programs, many of them, will have outlived their usefulness. The utilization of these dollars will be gone. Do I hope we have the political will to look at the mandatory spending side of the column? Absolutely. A couple of other points. I would hope that bipartisanship will come to reducing what we spend in this Chamber, that there will be agreement that we are, indeed, overtaxed and overspent, and the fiscal health of this Nation needs to be addressed. I also think that what we need to look at is the burden of taxation has caused many of our constituents to face deferred maintenance on their homes, on their businesses, on their dreams, because they are having to pay their taxes, they are having to pay what the Federal Government takes out of those paychecks, first right of refusal on those paychecks. It also causes job loss. It is time for us to address our overspending and our national debt. I do hope we see some work on the mandatory side of the column. I urge a ``yes'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I know especially our ranking member has been looking so forward to having this amendment come to the floor tonight because we have such great, robust discussions every year when I bring this amendment forward. It is calling for a 1 percent across- the-board reduction in the spending that is allowed through this appropriations bill. The reason I continue each year to move forward with presenting these is because across-the-board spending reductions work. It is a way that you hold the entire agency accountable for making those reductions. It is a way that you say: No, you are not going to be able to reposition money that maybe was for one thing and you really want to spend it on another. This is money that goes back. You are not going to spend it because the taxpayers continue to tell us they are overtaxed, that government has overspent. And we are piling on the debt every single year. Quite frankly, the American people are tired of it. I can tell you that, as our millennials come of age and look at government spending, they are, indeed, tired of it. They feel like it is time for this House to get back into good fiscal shape, to get to fiscal health. Now, I commend the committee for the work they have done. It is $21.7 billion base that is in this bill. It is $2.7 billion below the President's request. It is $1.5 billion below the enacted 2016 level. This is work that is to be commended, but I really believe there is more that needs to be done. The spending reduction of 1 percent across the board is turning to our Federal employees, rank-and-file employees, and saying: Help us with this. Be a part of the team. Let's push back to fiscal health. It will save us $217 million. This is something we should accept the challenge on. So should our Federal agencies. We should do this for our children and our grandchildren. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleague across the aisle that it was individuals from his party over in the Senate that chose not to handle the Zika funding last week. That is very unfortunate. Zika is something that is going to be such a challenge for families and individuals during our time, and I find those actions to be most unfortunate. Another thing that I would like to say, not to see the purpose in spending reductions, we have $19 trillion worth of debt. If we are going to spend over $3 trillion this year, you want to tell me that we don't need to be making some spending reductions? There is $21.7 billion worth of spending here, so the Appropriations Committee is appropriating money. Many times it is money we don't have. It is money taxpayers do not have in their pockets. And we have children and grandchildren today who are paying for programs that they do not want, programs that we do not need, that have outlived their usefulness, programs that could be more efficient with utilization of new technologies. Should we be reducing what we spend and right-sizing government and getting Federal agencies off the back and out of the pocketbook of the American taxpayer? You better believe we ought to be doing that. And if it means another penny out of a dollar, absolutely, absolutely, make another reduction. Challenge employees to come to the table with their best ideas. It is the way Governors do it, the way mayors do it. It is the way this House should do it. I encourage support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, a couple of thoughts there. Across-the-board reductions work. This is what we see our States use. Indeed, in Oklahoma, one of our former colleagues who is the Governor there, December, 3 percent cut, came back in March, 4 percent across- the-board cut because everyone has some skin in the game. Of course, there are good programs like the Small Business Administration, absolutely, good programs there. But I guarantee you, if you challenge those employees, yes, they can find a penny out of a dollar, absolutely. They can, just like their friends and colleagues at the State level or at local levels. They can do that. They can find the savings. And they need the opportunity to participate in getting our national debt under control and ending these annual deficits. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chair, a couple of points here. We have a privacy regulator. It is the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC has that jurisdiction. To add the FCC is going to cause confusion as to who is in charge of what. Everyone knows that. Do we need to pass a privacy bill? Absolutely. Do we need to pass a data security bill? Absolutely. That is the responsibility of this body. It is not the responsibility of unelected bureaucrats, who are sitting down at the FCC, who come up with a 147-page rule, and then they are not even looking, necessarily, at where the problem is with privacy. They are going to focus on the ISPs. They are out in front of their skis, if you will, on this one. We have a privacy regulator. It deserves to keep that authority because it has expertise in that area. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chair, what we have is an issue of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is with the FTC, and they have the funds, and they do a good job of this. Let them do their job. Preemption--yes, that is something that we should discuss and pass in a privacy and data security bill within this body. It should not be done by the FCC, which is saying, Hey, just trust us; just trust a Federal agency, and we will come in here and do this through the rules. It is a Big Government power grab. I think people have had enough of that. It is expensive. It is confusing. I urge support for my amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds made available by the act from being used to implement, administer, or enforce any of the rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted by the FCC on March 31, 2016. That is order FEC 16-39. It is intended to regulate ISP consumer privacy obligations. Mr. Chair, there are two problems with the FCC's actions that warrant a delay in the adoption of rules by the agency. First, the FCC's proposed rules are extreme and go well beyond anything they should be doing in this space, and it is a bipartisan concern. In May, Democrats Bobby Rush, Gene Green, and Kurt Schrader joined several Republicans in a letter to all of the FCC Commissioners and voiced strong concerns that the FCC's proposed privacy rulemaking ``intends to go well beyond'' the traditional framework that has guarded consumers from data practices of Internet service providers and ``ill-serves consumers who seek and expect consistency in how their personal data is protected.'' The FTC has traditionally been our government's sole Internet privacy regulator. A dual privacy enforcement model will create confusion within the existing Internet ecosystem. The FCC simply doesn't have the requisite technical expertise to regulate privacy. Former FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright testified before the House Judiciary Committee that the FTC has ``unique expertise'' in ``enforcing broadband service providers' obligations to protect the privacy and security of consumer data.'' The FCC's proposed rule would create economic harm. Former FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright, a GMU economist, recently said that there has been no economic analysis on the rule's impact. He said, ``That's a bad thing, to be clear.'' Let me tell you something. The fact that we have an agency that is not studying and working on the economic impact and reviewing what this is going to do to the economy is absolutely unbelievable, especially when you look at the fact that the FCC does not have the authority and expertise to move into privacy. That is the FTC's domain and a place where they work. This new rule has caused the FTC to bring forward two dozen additional questions; the stakeholders have proposed 500 questions; and the rule is a 147-page rule. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.