Marsha Blackburn

Mrs. BLACKBURN

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 H.R. 3134.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Pro-Life Caucus.

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I am here this morning to speak about the investigations into Planned Parenthood and to the sale of fetal tissues. We are beginning this process in our Committee on Energy and Commerce; and we are approaching this in a thoughtful manner, beginning these investigations as we look at life rights and focus on the lives of these unborn children and the mothers who have gone through this process. It is so interesting to me, as we have this discussion of fetal tissue sales and what all has transpired in the selling of these tissues, that we look to science. What science has shown us is that these are not blobs of tissue; these are babies. This weekend, I had the opportunity to go to a baby shower, and a very excited grandmother showed me the sonogram, the picture of her unborn granddaughter already named and being celebrated. As we looked at it, we could distinguish these features of this child yet unborn, but this child fully formed and developing and sleeping in her mother's womb. There was great excitement to celebrate this arrival, and we know that this is a fight worth having and a process worth ending as we look at the selling of these fetal organs and what has transpired. Now, everyone is familiar with what happened with Kermit Gosnell in his house of horrors, and we know there was a conviction, but what we have learned is those convictions are very rare. We have moved now to the video footage that The Center for Medical Progress released, and we see that this is absolutely sickening, abhorrent. These videos have raised a lot of suspicion about what has transpired in these Planned Parenthood affiliates and clinics and questions as to whether they have systematically and repeatedly broken laws. Obtaining informed consent for fetal tissue donation, how was that approached? Killing infants born alive after an attempted induced abortion, who are the persons entitled to legal protection here? As you look at a botched abortion and you have a child born alive, all of a sudden you have got two patients there that you are considering. Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Senior Director of Medical Services for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, describes harvesting human tissues. In one of the videos, she talks about crushing this part or the other part of the baby in order to get a good specimen. To listen to her callous description and her casual manner is sickening, but it also may violate some of the Federal laws which prohibit alteration of abortion procedures to obtain fetal tissue. In another video, a technician says: I'm sitting here and I'm looking at this fetus, and its heart is beating, and I don't know what to think. I don't know if that constitutes it's technically dead or it's alive. Imagine that. This baby, if it had arrived in a hospital with a NICU and doctors surrounding it, there would have been a rush to make certain that life was saved. And God bless those NICU specialists who work with these preemie babies. We have all spent time with them and are grateful that they are there. The cheap veneer of the left, the defense of abortion as a matter of reproductive choice, is wearing thin. Reproductive rights? As I said, let's talk about life rights. Let's discuss life rights. It is Constitution Day, the right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. We have got several bills that our Members are bringing forward, which I will submit for the Record, along, Mr. Speaker, with those Democrats that voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, which was passed in this House by a voice vote. Planned Parenthood Bills H.R. 3134, the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015 (Black) Bill would impose a one-year moratorium on all federal funding to Planned Parenthood or any of its affiliates while investigations are conducted unless they certify they will not perform abortions or provide funds to other entities that perform abortions. Restriction does not apply in cases of rape, incest or woman's health concerns. H.R. 3429, the Prohibiting the Life-Ending Industry of Fetal Organ Exchange Act or the Pro-LIFE Act (Yoder) This bill amends the Public Health Service Act to prohibit the transfer of fetal tissue in exchange for valuable consideration, including payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue. H.R. 3494, the Protecting Infants Born Alive Act (Blackburn) Draft legislation I have authored to strengthen and improve the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 became law on August 5, 2002 and requires that any reference to person, human being, child or individual include every infant born alive. * Both Ellmers and Blackburn bills will ban any provider proven of violating either of these existing laws from participating in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP and will allow states that suspect any violation of these existing laws to ban those suspected from the state's Medicaid program.* H.R. 3495, the Women's Public Health and Safety Act (Duffy) The bill amends the Medicaid law to allow states the flexibility and discretion to be able to exclude abortion providers like Planned Parenthood from Medicaid. States that have tried to defund Planned Parenthood have been blocked by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services assertion that states must fund Planned Parenthood under what is known as the ``free choice of qualified provider'' provision in Medicaid. Since the release of the undercover videos by Center for Medical Progress three states (Louisiana, Alabama and Arkansas) have sought to terminate Planned Parenthood's Medicaid contracts and are now embroiled in lawsuits. H.R. 3504, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (Franks) Bill mandates that infants born alive during abortions are legal persons entitled to all the rights and protections allowed to other legal persons, including needed medical care and attention. This legislation requires the same care for a child born alive during an abortion as a naturally premature baby born in a hospital. Any violation to this rule is a federal offense and must immediately be reported to law enforcement. The bill also provides for criminal penalties for providers who fail to provide care to baby. H.R. XX, the Protect Infants from Partial-birth Abortion Act (Ellmers) Legislation will bolster the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 amends the Federal Criminal code to ban partial-birth abortions except in the interest of the life of the mother H.R. 3515, Smith Dismemberment Abortion Ban Act The Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 (P.L. 107- 207) passed the House by voice vote and the Senate by UC. The following is a list of Democrats who were serving when these votes took place. Democratic Senators Tammy Baldwin *, Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown *, Benjamin L. Cardin *, Maria Cantwell, Tom Carper, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Patrick Leahy, Edward J. Markey *, Robert Menendez *, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Bill Nelson (FL), Jack Reed, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Debbie Stabenow, Tom Udall (NM) *, Ron Wyden. * served in the House during the 107th Congress. Democratic House Members Xavier Becerra, Sanford D. Bishop Jr., Earl Blumenauer, Robert A. Brady, Corrine Brown, Lois Capps, Michael E. Capuano, James E. Clyburn, John Conyers Jr., Joseph Crowley, Elijah E. Cummings, Danny K. Davis, Susan A. Davis, Peter A. DeFazio, Diana DeGette, Rosa L. DeLauro, Lloyd Doggett, Michael F. Doyle, Eliot L. Engel, Anna G. Eshoo. Sam Farr, Chaka Fattah, Gene Green, Luis V. Gutierrez, Alcee L. Hastings, Ruben Hinojosa, Michael M. Honda, Steny H. Hoyer, Steve Israel, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Marcy Kaptur, Ron Kind, James R. Langevin, Rick Larsen, Barbara Lee, Sander M. Levin, John Lewis, Nita M. Lowey, Stephen F. Lynch. Betty McCollum, Jim McDermott, James P. McGovern, Carolyn B. Maloney, Gregory W. Meeks, Jerrold Nadler, Grace F. Napolitano, Richard E. Neal, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Frank Pallone Jr., Bill Pascrell Jr., Donald M. Payne, Nancy Pelosi, Collin C. Peterson, David E. Price, Charles B. Rangel, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Bobby L. Rush, Loretta Sanchez, Janice D. Schakowsky. Adam B. Schiff, Robert C. Scott, Jose E. Serrano, Brad Sherman, Louise McIntosh Slaughter, Adam Smith, Bennie G. Thompson, Mike Thompson, Nydia M. Velazquez, Peter J. Visclosky, Maxine Waters.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, James A. Garfield said that ``Next in importance to freedom and justice is education, without which neither freedom nor justice can be maintained''. Even though President Garfield's presidency was short, he proclaimed the value of and set standards for better education in our nation. Being a former teacher he valued the public education system. A strong education base in Elementary, Middle and High School is essential for continuous growth. Educators, students, and communities who accomplish academic achievement and growth should be recognized. I am honored to congratulate Ramer School for being named a ``Reward School'' for the 2014-15 academic school year. To be one of only 5% in the state and one of only six in rural west Tennessee to achieve this status is an accomplishment for any school. And to make it more newsworthy, this is the second time in four years for Ramer to receive this award. We celebrate the hard work and dedication of your students, teachers, parents, and administrators. Ramer School, you are building a great foundation in the lives of future contributing adults. I congratulate you.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, people who serve their country in the military without regard for their own safety to safeguard our way of life are truly heroes. Some of these heroes come home to continue to serve their neighbors, their communities and fellow veterans. Today I am pleased to congratulate and honor a group of these great heroes. To the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 1294, Commander Eddie Bray, and the Ladies Auxiliary: I am amazed at your accomplishments and pleased that you have been recognized with the First Place status in the state of Tennessee for the second consecutive year. Some of your other outstanding awards include: The post was named National Community Service Post for the second year Commander Bray was awarded the Outstanding Recruiter of the year The post was awarded a plaque for 100% membership Awarded Honor Post status for exceeding 100% membership Named All State and the Commander and Quartermaster were named Co- Captains of All State Teams One of only 139 out of 6,999 posts to be named an All American Post Commander Bray named All American Commander I am pleased to have the honor to congratulate you in person and to thank you for your continued service.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, as part of the ``Faith it Forward'' initiative, I recognized and became more aware of some of the outstanding work and accomplishments of people in my district. Today I am pleased to congratulate Mr. John Chandler and to personally thank him for the work he continues to do with the youth of McNairy County. John teaches his students to give back to the community and to help those in need. He organizes student prayer breakfasts, devotionals, youth camps and mission trips. At Christmas, his youth group participates in the ``Shoe Box'' ministry and usually packs over 400 boxes. He leads the youth to give, visit and serve by example. In addition to his community service, John shows tireless support for his students in their own endeavors in sports and academics, sends prayer cards and texts during tough times, surgeries and recovery, and sponsors and creates entertainment for the youth of this rural community. John is truly a servant to his community and his youth. ``I am just a servant that has answered the call that God has placed on my heart and pours out through my life. To Him all the glory be given.''--John Chandler, Youth Minister, Selmer First Baptist Church Thank you, John Chandler, for continuing to make a difference in the lives of the youth of McNairy County.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the chairman for the work that he has done on this issue and the awareness that he has helped to raise not only with Members of this body, but with the American people. The American people are speaking out. They do not want this Iran deal to be on the books. And there are goods reasons why. As I was home and talking to my constituents, many are like me. They are a mom, they are a grandmother, and they fear for what this will do to our country. They fear for what it will do to the safety of our children and future generations. They are asking the right questions: Does Iran deserve the right to be trusted? Absolutely not. When their neighbors don't trust them, should we trust them? The answer is of course not. Is this a transparent agreement? Of course not. The secret side deals that have been made, why would we do that? Why would we incentivize, create a pathway, for Iran to have a nuclear weapon? I think what we should do is require the President to come forward with every component to expose this so we know what kind of future this creates for our children and our grandchildren.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct honor to introduce and honor guest chaplain Reverend Robert Michaels, from Brentwood, Tennessee. As is the tradition of this governing body, we begin each day with a prayer. I am so pleased that Chaplain Michaels is offering that prayer today. He is the CEO, founder, and national trauma care specialist for Serve & Protect, an international nonprofit organization dedicated to comprehensive and confidential trauma care and therapy for police officers, firefighters, rescue workers, dispatchers, and other emergency workers. Chaplain Michaels served in law enforcement with the 229th Military Police Battalion of the Virginia Army National Guard, as well as with the Norfolk, Virginia, police department. He serves as chaplain for the FBI Memphis division, Nashville R.A., State chaplain for Tennessee FOP, and is a chaplain and second vice president for Morris Heithcock FOP Lodge 41 in Williamson County, Tennessee, where he is an active member and leads a Bible study group for first responders. He is a member of the American Academy of Experts in Trauma Stress, National Center for Crisis Management, the International Conference of Police Chaplains, and Federation of Fire Chaplains. He holds a BA from Columbia International University and an MA from Wheaton College. Mr. Speaker, please join me in welcoming Chaplain Michaels today and expressing gratitude for the good work that he does for our law enforcement and emergency workers each and every day.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, as you know so well, one of the top issues that people in our districts are discussing is national security. The reason for that is because they are seeing the issues of national security, domestic security, played out on their streets. I want to stand with my colleagues who are going to do a Special Order in just a few minutes to honor the work that our first responders, that our men and women in uniform, are doing every single day to keep our community safe. A police officer is tasked with not just enforcing the law, which they do, they are also tasked with protecting the community. Often they find themselves with the duty to protect the community from itself, whether that is to stop the motorist who is driving recklessly in a school zone or having to thrust themselves into the middle of a domestic dispute and to restore order. I will tell you, so many times, as I talked to first responders as I was in my district in the month of August, they said there is no such thing as a routine stop any longer. They know they face danger. We thank them.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for so consistently working on this issue of how we deal with the criminal illegal alien population and also with the sanctuary cities. I thank Mr. Hunter for the work that he has done on this bill. I chuckled when Congressman King and the gentleman from Iowa mentioned the second generation of Hunters because, yes, we do know that his father was very involved in this issue and focusing on making certain that we keep our cities safe. As we have this debate and as we look at these sanctuary city policies that certain counties and cities and State have exercised, we have come to realize that through the years, every State has become a border State and every town a border town because of the criminal illegal alien population that will gravitate to these sanctuary cities. Los Angeles was the first sanctuary city in 1979. We hear people say, Oh, this is an issue that has been around for a long time. Mr. Speaker, that does not mean you do not address the issue. It means you solve the problem; you bring forward solutions, and that is what we are doing here today. The U.S. Sentencing Commission recently released some data that I think is instructive to this debate. Illegal aliens accounted for almost 75 percent of Federal sentencing for drug possession and made up more than a third of all Federal sentences in 2014. That is why we are dealing with this issue. Our constituents are saying, You need to put this on a front burner and deal with this issue. That is what we are doing here. Look at the State of Texas. I just recently read the stats from them.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. In Texas, the department of public safety released a report that, between 2008 and 2014, foreign aliens committed over 600,000 crimes and almost 3,000 murders in the State of Texas. That is the reason that we come here to address this issue. Mr. Speaker, the crime rate for illegal aliens in this country should be zero. It should be zero because it should not be tolerated.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this morning to talk for a few minutes about the primary issue that my constituents are talking about right now, and that is the issue of national security, homeland security, and how what is happening in the world is affecting our communities right where we live and work and where our children go to school. Isn't that what everyone wants to know: that we are going to be safe, that our children are going to be safe, and that future generations are going to be safe here in the United States? Mr. Speaker, as we look at these issues of illegal immigration, as we look at ISIS and the threats that are carried out, such as what happened in Chattanooga, and as we look at the Iran deal, we know this affects where we live and where we work. Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to spend just a few minutes talking about the Iran nuclear deal. One of the members, retired, of a military organization, MOAA, came up to me Saturday as I was talking to them. He said: Marsha, this is a bad, bad deal. It is a bad, bad deal. I have got to agree with him. It is. Of course, he speaks from the perspective of having worn the uniform and served, having had a full military career. It is interesting. They know a bad deal when they see one, and in this Iran nuclear deal that is proposed, they see the tenets of a very bad deal. Let's look at a few of these components that will not serve us and future generations, our national security, or our homeland security well. As you review this deal, you see that Iran retains the ability to enrich uranium. That does not stop. It is going to continue on. We can already see how a nuclear Iran would create an arms race in an area which is already volatile. Any capability to enrich uranium may cause a nuclear arms race to happen and further destabilize the Middle East. You see, Mr. Speaker, we are not prohibiting them from doing anything. All we are doing is basically setting a date certain 10, 15, or 20 years down the road. Now, think about your children and grandchildren 10, 15 or 20 years down the road. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, what are they going to say at that point in time? How is it going to affect them? Think about the region. A Saudi official has said: ``Politically, it would be completely unacceptable to have Iran with a nuclear capability and not the kingdom.'' I am quoting a Saudi official's remarks. Any deal must have full transparency, and we need to know that there can be and will be because there must be anytime, anywhere inspections. It is my fear that a deal with Iran is not going to accomplish this. The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday--and, Mr. Speaker, I will submit this for the Record--``Iran Inspections in 24 Days? Not Even Close.'' It was a Wall Street Journal article, and I commend it to my colleagues to read as they review this and think about how they are going to vote on this deal. The Wall Street Journal stated: ``The Obama administration assures Americans that the Iran deal grants access within 24 days to undeclared but suspected Iranian nuclear sites.'' When you look at the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it reveals that actually it is going to be closer to months. They can end up holding inspectors at bay for months. Again, from the Journal I am reading and quoting: ``So from the moment the IAEA first tips its hand about what it wants to inspect, likely three or more months may pass.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask you, does this sound like the type of deal that you would want to make with a country whose people recently were out chanting ``death to America'' and burning our flag to celebrate the Muslim holy day with the Supreme Leader in attendance at that rally? Does this sound like the type of deal that should be approved by our Secretary of State and supported by our President? Why? Why would they want to do this? Why would there be a deal that sets a date certain and kind of lays out that path? Simply put, there is no way--no way--that we can trust Iran to allow inspectors unfettered access to both civilian and military sites to verify that they are not pushing a nuclear weapon. So we would be left wondering if--if--they are going to hold up their end of this so-called nuclear deal. Mr. Speaker, a senior commander in the Revolutionary Guard has recently said that inspectors will not be allowed on military sites. General Hossein Salami said: ``We will respond with hot lead . . . We will not roll out the red carpet for the enemy.'' In addition, Mr. Speaker, it is extremely concerning that Iran is asking for sanctions on weapons sales and ballistic missile technology transfers to be lifted. It is a bad, bad deal, as my constituent said. I commend further study to my colleagues. [From the Wall Street Journal, July 21, 2015] Iran Inspections in 24 Days? Not Even Close (By Hillel Fradkin and Lewis Libby) The Obama administration assures Americans that the Iran deal grants access within 24 days to undeclared but suspected Iranian nuclear sites. But that's hardly how a recalcitrant Iran is likely to interpret the deal. A close examination of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action released by the Obama administration reveals that its terms permit Iran to hold inspectors at bay for months, likely three or more. Paragraphs 74 to 78 govern the International Atomic Energy Agency's access to suspect sites. First, the IAEA tells Iran ``the basis'' of its concerns about a particular location, requesting clarification. At this point Iran will know where the IAEA is headed. Iran then provides the IAEA with ``explanations'' to resolve IAEA concerns. This stage has no time limit. Opportunities for delay abound. Iran will presumably want to know what prompted the IAEA's concern. The suspect site identified by the IAEA is likely to be remote, and Iran will no doubt say that it must gather skilled people and equipment to responsibly allay IAEA concerns. Iran may offer explanations in stages, seeking IAEA clarifications before ``completing'' its response. That could take a while. Only if Iran's ``explanations do not resolve the IAEA's concerns'' may the IAEA then ``request access'' to the suspect site. Oddly, the agreement doesn't specify who judges whether the explanations resolve concerns. If Iran claims that it has a say in the matter, the process may stall here. Assuming Iran grants that the IAEA can be the judge, might Iran claim that the ``great Satan'' improperly influenced IAEA conclusions? Let's assume that Tehran won't do that. Now the IAEA must provide written reasons for the request and ``make available relevant information.'' Let's assume that even though the IAEA may resist revealing the secret sources or technical means that prompted its suspicions, Iran acknowledges that a proper request has been supplied. Only then do the supposed 24 days begin to run. First, Iran may propose, and the IAEA must consider, alternative means of resolving concerns. This may take 14 days. Absent satisfactory ``arrangements,'' a new period begins. During this period Iran, ``in consultation with'' the Joint Commission, will ``resolve'' the IAEA concerns ``through necessary means agreed between Iran and the IAEA.'' The Joint Commission includes China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K, the U.S., the European Union and, of course, Iran. Not exactly a wieldy bunch. The Iranians will likely claim that ``consultation'' with the Joint Commission doesn't bind Tehran, just as the U.S. president isn't bound by consultations with Congress. The agreement says the consultation process will not exceed seven days, but Iran can point out that the nuclear deal doesn't specify when Iran and the IAEA must reach agreement and ``resolve'' IAEA concerns. In the absence of Iran-IAEA agreement, a majority of the Joint Commission has seven days to ``advise'' on the ``necessary means'' to resolve the matter. Iran may fairly argue that the commission's right to ``advise'' is not the same as a right to ``determine'' the ``necessary means.'' Lastly, the agreement provides that ``Iran would implement the necessary means within 3 additional days.'' But what ``necessary means'' are these? As noted, the agreement refers to ``necessary means agreed between Iran and the IAEA.'' So these additional three days don't even begin until an agreement is reached. Now what? Well, the U.S. may take a ``Dispute'' to the Joint Commission, on which Iran sits, which has 15 days to resolve the issue. Parties may or may not invoke a similar 15 days for foreign ministers to act. Parties may also request a nonbinding opinion within 15 days from an advisory board consisting of three members, one appointed by Iran, one by the complaining country and ``a third independent member.'' But Iran may argue that nothing in the nuclear deal specifies how quickly a country must appoint its advisory- board member or even how the ``independent member'' is selected. In short, this stage may take at least 30 days and possibly 45 of consideration at the different levels, but Iran may argue that the last 15 days don't start until an advisory board has been duly formed. Then we get another five days of Joint Commission deliberation, before a disappointed U.S. or other commission member seeking IAEA inspections can hobble off to the United Nations seeking resolutions reimposing sanctions. In short, as Iran is free to interpret the agreement, 63 or even 78 days may pass, plus three potentially lengthy periods that Iran can stretch out: One of ``explanations'' before the clock starts, one to agree on necessary means and ``resolve concerns,'' and one for advisory-board selection near the end. So from the moment the IAEA first tips its hand about what it wants to inspect, likely three or more months may pass. All along, the Joint Commission is required to act in ``good faith,'' and to make only ``minimum necessary'' requests limited to verification, not ``interference.'' Tehran could also cite these terms to challenge particular requests. The description of this process is based on the English- language text of the nuclear agreement. The text lacks a provision that it is the entire agreement, so Iran may claim support in supposed side agreements or statements during negotiations. Announcing this ``comprehensive, long-term'' deal, President Obama quoted President Kennedy's 1961 call for negotiations with the Soviets. Kennedy reached two notable nuclear agreements. Mr. Obama didn't mention that within a decade of Kennedy's 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty, Soviet nuclear forces--once a fraction of America's--were at parity or had surpassed ours. During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy reached secret agreements--undisclosed to Americans for decades--not to invade Cuba and to withdraw U.S. weapons from Turkey. By invoking Kennedy was President Obama signaling there is more to this ``long-term'' deal than we know? He is a subtle man.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. We are talking about setting the price for this.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. It is just their routine nature. This was not the first time they had done this. In listening to them, that is made very apparent.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman. And I thank the gentleman for his leadership in organizing this hour. Mr. Speaker, we come to the floor tonight as mothers and grandmothers and dads and granddads, and we come with such heavy hearts and with such a burden for what we have found out, for what we have seen, and for what has been made public about Planned Parenthood. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I thought it was very interesting that the head of Planned Parenthood came out this week and said, ``Oh, we think there are more videos to come.'' That is because they know they have been caught, and they know they are guilty, and they know what they have done; but no amount of trying to go out and push it to the side is going to push this to the side. That is why our committee, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is taking up an investigation. We are already working on this. We are pushing forward to get the witnesses before us and to exercise the appropriate oversight that is there for us to do. Planned Parenthood does get Federal taxpayer dollars. The problem is money is fungible. And when you see what has been carried out in these videos--in their own words what they describe--you know how destructive that process is. As Mr. Walker just said, Planned Parenthood conducts over 300,000 abortions a year. They are the Nation's largest abortion provider. Their focus is no longer family planning or women's health. It is abortion. What we have found out is that, through this sector of their business that is focused on abortion, they have now moved even further away, and they are into selling body parts--harvesting and selling body parts. We have heard the Members speak so eloquently to this, and I know, Mr. Speaker, people can hear the emotion in our voices and in our hearts, because this is a subject you don't think about discussing on the House floor, but it is one that has been left for us to oversee. They talk about procuring these body parts. In their own words, they talk about setting the price, negotiating, dealing with the tissue brokers. These are the most abhorrent and inhumane statements and words and conduct. The conduct and the demeanor of these individuals on those videotapes cannot be denied and the casual nature with which they discussed this, as if it is routine. It is an expected part of their business. That is why we are moving forward to investigate them. That is why we feel funding should be restricted. Over 65 percent of the American people, Mr. Speaker, are against the use of taxpayer funds for abortion, and it is time for us to deal with, to hold accountable, to restrict, and to put some barriers around what has been happening with Planned Parenthood. It is an investigation we will pursue until we know the truth and have every element of truth.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, sitting here listening to my colleagues, I find it just so incredibly interesting that nearly everyone that is coming to the floor today is talking about an issue that centers on our Nation's security, whether it is our national security writ large in the world, what is happening in the Middle East, or what is happening here at home. And, as I talk to female constituents, it is amazing to me what comes up over and over: How are we going to be certain that we are safe in our homes, in our communities? How do I know that my children are going to be safe at school? How do I know that we are going to be safe when we are out at events in the community or driving in the car or going to church? These are questions of concern to so many moms who, like me, worry about their children and their grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the issues that brings me to the floor today. I have legislation that I first filed in 2007. It is called the CLEAR Act. It is H.R. 2964. The CLEAR Act addresses the issues with the criminal illegal aliens that are in our country and the policies that have arisen around sanctuary cities. These sanctuary city policies and the executive amnesty really have turned every State into a border State and every town into a border town in this country. Here is why: There are lax, permissive, and liberal policies that have really created an open border society here in our country--and do you know what, it makes Americans less safe every single day. Now, the CLEAR Act isn't a big bill; it is 20 pages, but let me tell you what it does specifically. It withholds funding from section 241(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to sanctuary States and cities. That is important to do because, as I said, those lax, liberal, and permissive policies have now allowed over the last 7 or 8 years to create a total of nearly 300 sanctuary cities in this country. This should disturb us because we are becoming a sanctuary country. I would ask my colleagues: Will you support that provision of the CLEAR Act? The second thing the CLEAR Act does, Mr. Speaker, is when a State or local law enforcement agency arrests an alien and requests that DHS, Homeland Security, take custody of that alien, the CLEAR Act requires DHS to do two things: take the alien into Federal custody and incarcerate him or her within 48 hours or request that the State or municipality temporarily incarcerate the alien or transport them to Federal custody. The CLEAR Act requires the DHS to train State and local police in enforcing immigration laws and to repay them for the money that they have spent. Now, sanctuary cities first started to happen in the United States in 1979. Los Angeles was the first sanctuary city. That means these cities choose--choose--to stand in violation of Federal law and to not comply with Federal immigration law. Mr. Speaker, I think it is so instructive that the Department of Justice has never taken one of these cities to court, but if you let a State like Arizona try to strengthen their immigration laws, then the Department of Justice takes them to court. There is something wrong with that. Another thing that has happened is the illegal alien crime rate which has continued to grow. Do you know what the illegal alien crime rate should be? It is zero--zero. There should not be tolerance for this. We see it all across our country. Certainly, we saw it on a San Francisco pier. In Tennessee, a Tennessee Highway Patrol officer made a traffic stop on I-40 that led to the arrest of a man with an order of deportation and the recovery of a 19-year-old who may have been a victim of human sex trafficking. Mr. Speaker, it is time to address this issue, and I encourage support for the CLEAR Act.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for pulling us together. Madam Speaker, when you talk about issues that are women's issues, right now national security is at the top of the heap. As we have talked about soccer moms and Walmart moms and all of these other iterations and descriptions during the years, right now we are looking at a category of security moms because the issue of security is what mothers are talking about. I appreciate so much the gentlewoman from North Carolina's leadership, and we have two other colleagues who have yet to join us-- Ms. Ros-Lehtinen from Florida and Mrs. Lummis from Wyoming--to talk about this issue. Coast to coast, this is what people are talking about, and they sit in disbelief at what this administration is doing. Whether it is Iran or whether it is other foreign policy, our friends and allies look at us, as the gentlewoman from Alabama said, and they ask: ``What are you doing? Where have you been? What are you thinking?'' As we would say in Nashville, ``They have got a thinking problem.'' Our enemies look at us and say: ``Asleep at the wheel. This is our opportunity.'' That is exactly what Iran is doing, and they are looking at what we are doing to our military. I thank the gentlewoman from Alabama for talking about her love for Fort Rucker and the men and women there. I know the gentlewoman probably sits down with those in her district at Fort Rucker, like I do with the families, with the leadership team, with the men and women in uniform at Fort Campbell, which is located in my district. They are terribly concerned. They have a mission to fulfill, and it is despicable that this administration will continue to try to cut and cut and cut our military, cut the numbers, don't give them raises, don't give them all the tools and training, don't give them the Flying Hours Program that they need for redeployment. Guess what, Madam Speaker. Every bit of that affects the effectiveness of our men and women in uniform. The gentlewoman from Alabama will expand on the point of the cuts that are taking place at Fort Rucker and what that means to her constituents.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I do, indeed. The gentlewoman makes a point that is so very important, the readiness and the ability to fight 21st-century warfare on a lot of different fronts. Madam Speaker, my colleagues and I will say part of that is naming and knowing your enemy, radical Islamist extremists. That is the enemy, and that is one of the reasons that this deal that the President announced this morning is so terribly disturbing to us. His advisors had said that no deal is better than a bad deal. Guess what. What we saw from the President this morning is a pretty bad deal. Here is what Iran gets to keep in this deal: 5,060 centrifuges. It includes an 8-year limitation on uranium enrichment. Think about that, an 8-year limitation. So, then, are we setting a time certain that Iran can move forward? This is something that our constituents and the American people need to know about. Then you look at the other components of this, the IAEA's not having the ability to just move forward and inspect anytime anywhere, but having to give that 2-week notice. That is something, again, of tremendous concern. The President has threatened to veto any legislation that impedes the nuclear deal. My hope is that Congress is going to stand up and say ``no'' to the President in this deal and that we will say ``yes'' to increasing the security of this Nation.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chair, America has been at her best when facing great challenges. Some of our greatest challenges today are in the area of healthcare. With over 10,000 known diseases, only 500 have cures. We need to embrace a national vision of improving lives, and of course, saving money, through a Cures Strategy. Sepsis is one condition that will benefit from this legislation. Sepsis is the body's response to an overwhelming infection. Approximately 250,000 people die from sepsis every year in the U.S. and yet most people have never heard of it. Sepsis is the #1 most expensive condition treated in U.S. hospitals and in FY11 the aggregate hospital cost for sepsis was more than $20 billion. This legislation comes too late for Katie McQuestion and Rory Staunton, both who succumbed to sepsis as vibrant, health young people. But through the work that the CURES legislation will support, we can find ways to identify sepsis earlier and even find ways to prevent sepsis. The 21st Century Cures legislation includes language that I have authored with my friend from Texas, Rep. Gene Green--the SOFTWARE act. Getting bureaucracy out of the way and allowing innovation is the goal of SOFTWARE. SOFTWARE will codify the manner in which FDA approaches health IT-- including the wonderful apps that we all use to keep us healthy. FDA is the agency charged with assuring the safety and efficacy of drugs and medical devices. But data is not a drug or device and it makes no sense to regulate it as such. However obvious that is, it hasn't stopped FDA from trying to make medical device law fit health IT. We need to modernize the FDA authorities to reflect the new technology that is health IT. SOFTWARE, as included in 21st Century Cures is an important first step in our efforts to modernize the FDA. It is common sense legislation to provide opportunity for health IT to deliver on the promise of better health for all Americans. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to bolster these efforts as SOFTWARE moves through the Senate. For all the reasons I've outlined, the 21st Century Cures legislation is an important bill. But we must ensure that the new treatments, devices and drugs that will be created as a result of this legislation get to the people that need it the most. And some of the most needy are our nations seniors who get health care through Medicare. Today, Medicare struggles with the adaption of new technology. Many seniors go years without access to the latest treatment options. We must change that. Congress receives great support from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) who offers recommendations and policy support to Congress to improve Medicare. But as we are on the cusp of changing how health care is delivered, MedPAC could use additional policy support including Commissioners that have real-world expertise in this area, and who understand the changes that need to be made in both Medicare payment and regulatory policies to make that happen. I've been pleased to support such candidates in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2722.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this amendment. I think it is important to realize a couple of things. The American people have spoken out on this issue. Sixty-eight percent of all Americans oppose taxpayer dollars being used for abortions. Seventy-one percent of all millennials oppose this. What the Lee amendment would do is strip away bipartisan agreements that we use in appropriations bills. This is not something that is new. It is not language that is new. The Hyde amendment and the Hyde language has been around for a very long time. The Lee amendment would reverse important limitations to protect these taxpayer dollars. I have mentioned the opposition to abortion. There is also prohibition for the use of public funds to advocate for gun control, limit Federal grants from being awarded to tax cheats. Do we really want tax cheats being able to get Federal dollars? It limits extravagant conference spending for public employees. Do we really want them to be able to waste these dollars? Of course not. Of course not. That is why this language is in the bill. I encourage my colleagues to vote against the Lee amendment.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, America really is at its best when we are facing challenges, and so many of the challenges that we face today are in the area of health care and healthcare delivery. Right now, we know we have over 10,000 identified diseases. We only have cures for 500 of those. This is why we need to work to focus the NIH and the FDA on a cures strategy and do this through the legislation that is before us today. Indeed, it is bipartisan, and it carries different components of bipartisan legislation. One is the SOFTWARE Act that Representative Green and I have worked on. Mr. Chairman, getting bureaucracy out of the way and allowing innovation is the goal of the SOFTWARE Act. It would codify the manner in which the FDA approaches health IT, including the wonderful apps that we use to help make us healthy. The FDA is the agency charged with ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs and medical devices, but data is not a drug or a device, and it makes no sense to regulate it as such. That is why we bring forward the SOFTWARE Act. We support the bill and encourage others to support it.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to discuss H.R. 2964, the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act. This is a bill that I have had introduced every Congress since 2007. And we have many Members of this body, Mr. Speaker, who have joined as cosponsors of this legislation. What it would do specifically is this: It would ensure that State and local law enforcement officials have the tools necessary to help the Federal Government deport criminal illegal aliens from the United States. My legislation would require the Department of Homeland Security, when a State or local law enforcement agency arrests an alien and requests DHS to take custody of that alien, to do a few specific things. Number one, they have to take the alien into Federal custody and incarceration within 48 hours and request that the State or municipality temporarily incarcerate the alien or transport the alien to Federal custody. This would allow them to remove this individual from the country and bar them from coming back. Mr. Speaker, the bill also requires the DHS to train State and local police in enforcement of immigration laws, the Federal Government to reimburse local and State governments, and to withhold funds from sanctuary cities. Now, we have heard a lot about these issues in the last few days, and one of the problems that we have is the sanctuary cities. Mr. Speaker, I have before my colleagues a map that was prepared by the Center for Immigration Studies. We now have in this country 200 sanctuary cities. I am reading from this map. More than 200 cities, counties, and States across the U.S. are considered sanctuary cities. Now, what happens in these cities is they choose to work around and to circumvent or not to abide by Federal law when it comes to immigration policy. That is one of the reasons passing the CLEAR Act is so important, holding them accountable. Also, reading from the map, I find it so interesting that the Department of Justice has never sued or taken any measure, including denying Federal funds, against the jurisdiction that is a sanctuary city. On the other hand, we know that the Department of Justice actually sued the State of Arizona for trying to strengthen its immigration laws. Mr. Speaker, I would come to the floor today as we talk about dealing with the criminal illegal alien population and highlighting H.R. 2964. I would ask my colleagues: What does your vote record say about your actions? Are you strengthening Federal law and abiding by Federal law? Or do those actions strengthen sanctuary cities? Do they provide more accountability? Is that what you are providing through your vote actions? Or is it something that allows a violation of Federal law to continue? I think it is imperative that we address the issue of criminal illegal aliens, that we address the issue of sanctuary cities; and, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is imperative that we move forward with passage of the CLEAR Act by this body. It is a simple bill. I encourage my colleagues to read it. It is 21 pages, and you will find in there that it addresses these issues that are front and foremost in our minds this day.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

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