Marsha Blackburn

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentlelady. She mentioned jobs bills. Mr. Speaker, 40 of the bills sitting in this stack are related to jobs. Just the Keystone pipeline bill, there are 42,000 direct and indirect jobs that are related to getting the Keystone pipeline started. So the question becomes: What are you afraid of? What do you fear from taking up some of these bills? Do you fear the American people going to work? Do you fear that things just might get on the right track? That you would find in these 332 bills that we expand some opportunities and the environment for opportunities and the environment for jobs growth to take place? Why is it that the Senate is content with being a do-nothing Senate? Why is it that they are accepting of being a do-nothing Senate? I think we would all like to know the answer to that question. Do they like it? Do they like that they have a stack of work this high sitting on their desk that they are just not able to get around to? You know, I used to do some door-to-door sales, and we had a little wooden coin and it was called ``a round to-it.'' Any time we felt like procrastinating, any time we felt like we just didn't have the energy to do the heavy lift or make one more sales call or go to another prospect, we would take that round to-it out of our pocket and look at it and remind ourselves, the important thing is to get around to doing the job in front of you. You know what, Mr. Speaker, I still have my round to-it. I have it on my desk. It is getting old and worn-out, but anytime you think I could just be lazy, I could just not finish this and go do something I want to do, you look at the work in front of you, you look at the fact that you have a cluttered desk, and you look at the fact and consider that people are counting on you to do your job, and you make it a priority to get around to it and to get the job done. That is precisely what the American people have expected of this body, and we have done it. We have done that. And it is frustrating to us and to the American people, and I tell you, we join them in their frustration because look at this, all of these bills, and nothing has been done. The gentlewoman from Minnesota mentioned the issue of veterans. Do you think it would be considered appropriate to not solve the VA issues and the issues for our Nation's veterans? Of course not. I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mrs. BLACKBURN. That is exactly right. And it is about making certain that we get our labor force participation back up in this country. We have the lowest labor force participation rate we have had since the misery index days of Jimmy Carter's Presidency. We would love to see more individuals back into the workforce. There are 40 bills that would deal with creating the environment for jobs growth to take place. There is opportunity for innovation in some of these bills. There is predictability and certainty in bills as simple as the little bit on the Keystone pipeline. All of it is sitting on Harry Reid's desk. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier tonight, one of the questions many of us in the House are asking is, What is the Senate afraid of? What is it the majority leader and the Senate fearful of? Why does he not take up some of these bills? We have 332 bills, and 232 passed either unanimously or with a two- thirds vote. That is a pretty amazing record. And in these bills are solutions that the American people are looking for--solutions to jobs, to veterans issues, solutions in certainty for our Nation's economy, for our national security, and opportunity for our children. Those are the things that our focus is on. It is what our constituents have sent us here to do and the job they have sent us here to do. So I would encourage my colleagues. And as we move forward, we will continue in the House to do our job and to send bills to the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you I think that we would be encouraging of our friends in the Senate to not be a do-nothing Senate--not to be content with that--but to be aggressive in taking up these bills. And as they get ready for August and go back to their districts to work, to get around to it and get to work to clean and organize their desks and do what is right for the American people by addressing the issues that concern them and finding solutions to the issues that they bring to us each and every day. With that I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time and appreciate being here on behalf of my colleagues and to have a discussion that is going to focus on what we are doing with our time. Mr. Speaker, it seems like it never fails. When we are out and about in our districts talking with our constituents, people will approach us, and they want to talk about how concerned they are about the cost of living and what they see happening to the price at the pump and to the price at the grocery store. They want to talk about how concerned they are with how much more education seems to cost them. They are concerned about our national security. They are concerned about the border security. They are concerned about their retirement security. The list goes on and on and on. They will look at us and, Mr. Speaker, without fail, they will say: Tell me exactly what you are doing about this. I want to know what you are doing to address this problem or that problem or any of the issues that all of us hardworking families are out there facing every single day--every day. What they are looking for is solutions. What we have realized is that many times they don't know exactly how hard we are working here in the House and that the obstruction that is happening is not necessarily here in the House. What is happening is across the dome over on the Senate side. Now, I have got in front of me 300 of the 332 bills that have passed this House--300 of the 332 bills that have passed this House. Now, sometimes people will say: Where are those bills sitting? Why haven't they gone to the President's desk? Well, I always like to tell them, they are on the desk of Harry Reid. It is unfortunate, but it is where those 332 bills are languishing. Now, as we begin to look at being out of D.C. and working in our districts for August, one would think that the majority leader over in the Senate, Mr. Reid, would get busy with trying to clean his desk. Most people do that. When they expect to be out of town working for a few weeks, they try to get their desk cleaned off, and they try to get things pushed out to where they need to go. They get things organized. They get things done. But that is not what we are seeing in the Senate. I had one of my constituents come up to me one day and say: Look, I am all for the Larry the Cable Guy approach. I said: Tell me what that is. They said: Git-R-Done. That is what people are looking for, getting the job done on behalf of hardworking taxpayers. Now, sometimes people will say: Tell me what all is in this list of things that you have done. Let me just go through what we have found in our bills that have been passed. 178 of these 332 bills, 178 of the bills passed with no opposition, none at all. There was agreement, total agreement, on these bills. One would think that the Senate majority leader would say: 178 bills in which there is complete agreement, those bills coming out of the House? Surely we can move those forward in the Senate. Surely, out of 100, we can get 60 to agree on something. But it is amazing. The Senator still has not called for a vote on those. Beyond that, 54 more bills passed under suspension. That means you had to have two-thirds of this body agree. So all totaled, that is 232 of the 332 bills that have passed this body with either no opposition or two-thirds of the body voting in support of that. I also find it very interesting, and probably some of our Democrat colleagues would like to join us in our Special Order tonight, because 55 of these bills--55 of these bills--were authored by Democrats. I am certain that they would like to see the majority leader take up their bills and push them through. Mr. Speaker, when you are so far behind in your work, you generally work nights and you work weekends. You roll up your sleeves, you buckle down, and you get the job done. But that is not what we are seeing happen coming from the Senate. What we are continuing to see is a resistance, an absolute resistance, to moving forward and taking up these bills. Now, as we go into our last week next week before our August work period, there are several issues that we would love to see the Senate address. As I said, the issues that are stacked in front of us cover everything that the American people are talking to us about, that our constituents are talking to us about when we go into our town halls. On the issue of energy, we have 16 bills that deal with the issues of energy, 16 different bills that are right here that would address energy issues. Many people have heard us talk about the Keystone pipeline. Do you realize that the bill that would address the Keystone pipeline approval you are going to find right here in this hefty stack of paper? For those who are just really concerned about what they are paying at the pump--and I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I have been watching the price of a gallon of gas when I fill up my car, and in the last few months, I have gone from $3.59 to as high as $4.15 to fill that car up--far too much. For people who are paying too much at the pump, there is legislation in here that would get the cost down. It is Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America that Works, getting that price down at the pump. For individuals that feel like we are paying too much on our electricity rates--and we have all watched these rates go up. You look at that bill every month and you see, compared to last year, you are using fewer kilowatt hours but you are paying more. And you think, how could this be? Well, of course, we all remember the President saying that the prices would necessarily skyrocket under him, and he has made good on that promise. Maybe a lot of promises he hasn't made good on, but, the fact that gas was going to cost us more and electricity was going to cost us more, he is making good on that. Well, here is a bill, the Electricity Security and Affordability Act. All of these are cost-of-living items that we look at in our monthly budgets, energy being one of those that affects us all, everywhere we drive, when we turn on the lights, when we light the fireplace or turn on the burner of the stove to cook lunch. Bills that address those issues, they are found right in front of us. So there is plenty of work on Harry Reid's desk. Harry Reid has been unwilling to call the vote. I know that my colleagues join me in saying we would love to see him call the vote on one of these 332 bills. At this time, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman. I love the fact that he talked about Montana and what is going there and the northern route approval, Mr. Speaker, the H.R. 3. I wish he would hold that bill back up. I will yield to the gentleman. How many pages is actually in that bill that would approve the route for the Keystone pipeline?

Mrs. BLACKBURN. So it is 2,700 pages.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. That is easy to read, and people could easily read that. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that our bills are not 2,000 pages or 2,700 pages or 2,300 pages. You are talking about bills that are readable. They are easy to work through. You can take them up one at a time, get going on them, and get some things done for the American people. You can see the different bills. This one is two pages. This one can't be more than about 15 or 20 pages. So this is not too much of a heavy lift. You can look at a bill like the Keystone pipeline bill, H.R. 3. It is simple and easy to read, but yet this would help create the environment for jobs growth. It would put in motion the components that are necessary to get 42,000 direct and indirect jobs started and on the books. For an electric power co-op in Montana--and I think it is important to realize that co-ops are membership-led and owned organizations; these are the people that live in the communities that own these utilities--it would be able to hold those utility rates flat. What a boom that would be for those families that are members of that co-op and those small businesses to be able to say, We have got certainty and stability and we have got security of electric power that is going to be predictable and our rates are going to be stable and low for a 10-year period of time. That helps them to know what to expect, to work those business plans, and develop plans for expansion. That aids job growth. And that is an indirect benefit. It is a positive consequence of taking a step and passing a bill that is not even 3-pages long that would approve a route for a project.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, on the veterans issue, there are three bills specifically that cover exactly what Mrs. Bachmann has just mentioned. H.R. 4031, which is the Department of Veterans Affairs Management Accountability Act, this is something desperately needed. Accountability in the VA, absolutely. Why will the Senate not take this up? Why will they not come to work on this bill? Another, H.R. 2072, Demanding Accountability For Veterans Act, again languishing on the desk of Harry Reid. Of course the VA should be accountable to the veterans and to the American taxpayer. Why are they not moving this forward so that it gets addressed? H.R. 4810, Veteran Access to Care, precisely what Mrs. Bachmann is speaking of, making certain that the veterans are guaranteed that they are seen in a timely manner. I have one constituent who got on the VA list for a primary physician 15 years ago. Guess what? He is still waiting. I have another constituent who has been on the list for 3 years and has never gotten a call. This is completely unacceptable, and in this stack of 332 bills, you are going to find bills that will put that accountability in place. Mrs. Bachmann mentioned also the issue of taxes. We hear about it everywhere we go. People are overtaxed. They are overworked. They realize that they are taxed far too much, and they are tired of it. They want to see the tax rates lowered and the tax burden lowered as well as seeing the regulatory burden lowered. And on taxes, we have got seven bills, one we passed today, the Student and Family Tax Simplification Act. We have got permanent Internet tax freedom. It is right here, seven bills that deal with taxes. We also have H.R. 4457, America's Small Business Tax Relief Act. Hardworking men and women, small business owners, small business employees, they all want to make certain that we deal with this complicated and overbearing Tax Code. They want to make certain that we are reducing that burden on them. We could take some steps, not solve all of the problems, but take some steps in that direction if the Senate would show up and take up some of the tax bills that are here and help us lower that burden. We hear a lot about government spending. You know, government never gets enough of the taxpayers' money and government spends too much. You give them a little, they are going to take a little more. We have 31 different bills that are in this stack that deal with reining in government spending, that deal with some of the budget reforms that are desperately needed so that we get rid of some antiquated processes and move to a new template for how we need to approach our spending and approach being a good steward of the taxpayers' money; 31 different bills. Pick one. Get going. It is amazing, once you get going on a task, it is easier. You get momentum, and that is something that we would like to see the Senate get and take up some of these 332 bills that are sitting over on Harry Reid's desk. Maybe you are aggravated about government waste and you are frustrated with regulatory overreach, and you would like to see a smaller Federal Government, and you would like it if some of these Federal agencies would stop wasting your money. Well, we have 16 bills in this stack that deal with stopping that overreach and curbing that waste and putting the bureaucracy on the track to being a better steward of the taxpayer money. We have to remember it is not Federal Government money, it is not the money of this Chamber, it is the taxpayers' money. They want these issues addressed. How about reining in red tape? You know, I talk to lots of small business manufacturers on a regular basis and they will say to me, the red tape is killing us. The regulation and the red tape is just killing us. We spend too much time on compliance. We have four different bills in here that deal with compliance and cutting red tape. That is another way that government can do a better job of responding to the needs of the American people and the taxpayers. I think everybody, Mr. Speaker, is concerned about national security. Every time you pick up a paper or you flip on a channel or you turn a page on your iPad and go to a Web site and look at what is happening, whether it is in Ukraine, the belligerence of Russia, whether it is what is happening in the Middle East, and what we see happening in Israel, concerns about Iran, everybody is concerned about foreign affairs and concerned about our Nation's security. We have six different bills that would deal with these issues of national security. We would appreciate it if the Senate would take up some of these House-passed bills. Again, Mr. Speaker, 178 of these bills--178 of 332 bills have come out of this Chamber with no opposition at all. Another 54 have passed, 54 have passed, with a two-thirds vote of this Chamber. As I said earlier, that is 232 of the 332 bills. By the way, 55 of the bills out of the 332 bills are bills that have been authored by the Democrats, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about repealing and replacing ObamaCare and making the health care system work, getting it into a healthy, healthy place, so that you are going to see people actually have access to health care. Right now, we have got a situation where everybody's health insurance costs are going up, and they are concerned about that. Access with these very narrow networks is becoming more difficult. We are hearing of people that are having to travel great distances to get to physicians or they are having longer waits. We found 11 bills right here that deal with health care. Some of these are repealing and replacing ObamaCare, 11 bills right here that could be taken up that would help with those situations, that would help with the access to health care, access to the doctor. What we have seen happen with ObamaCare is that people have access to the queue because they have got a health care card, but what they do not have is access to the physician. By the way, education--I talked to a constituent at the grocery store on Saturday morning, and she said that she was beginning to plan toward back to school for her two children. I said: Oh my goodness, it seems so early to be planning for back to school. She said: Well, you know, they are going to be starting back to school the end of the first week of August and then into school the second week of August, and there are fees to pay, there are different class fees that have to be paid, sports teams that have to be signed up for, sports physicals that the children have to get, and those beginning-of-school expenses. So she was beginning to focus on education and asked what were we going to do about letting parents and local school districts and getting rid of common core and replacing it with commonsense and putting parents and teachers in charge of those classrooms. Well, we could make some progress in that direction. Seven of the bills that we have right here deal with education and with the issues that face parents and students and teachers. We are all concerned about the future and what is going to be there for our children, in making certain that they are prepared for the future and having access to a quality education and having that right there in our neighborhoods and our communities. We could take some steps in that direction if the Senate would begin to take up some of the legislation that is over there on the Senate desk. As was said earlier, we are facing a do-nothing Senate because they have chosen not to get to work on this stack of legislation that would address some of these issues. Mr. Speaker, this week, as we have looked at the crisis on the southern border, we have heard quite a bit of talk and conversation about the issues of human trafficking, drug trafficking, the sex trafficking that is taking place in this country. Many people probably are not aware, and many of our colleagues probably haven't thought about the amount of work that we have done over the past 2 years on this issue, getting ready to address the issue, doing some research and some digging and some education and addressing human trafficking, taking steps to prevent this, to have the ability to do some intervention, penalties, and making certain that we are strengthening the family unit and fighting these trafficking elements. We have 11 bills specific to human trafficking that are right here, 11 bills that would help hold accountable some of the traffickers and smugglers and put penalties in place, strengthen and shore up families, take care of victims, do some work on prevention. It would be encouraging if the Senate would join us and address those. There are other bills that are here. We have got bills that deal with innovation. We have got flexibility for working families to make it easier for working moms. All of those issues are issues that could be addressed. Yes, we have worked in a bipartisan manner. Indeed, we recently--just a few minutes ago, Congresswoman Jackson Lee was here on the floor talking about some of her work. I thought it was interesting. There was a report earlier in the week. She had had 18 rollcall votes on her amendments in the House in the past year. That is more rollcall votes than all the Republicans in the Senate combined. She was asked about the amendments in a recent interview, and she said, ``I want to thank the Republicans for their generosity.'' That is the manner in which we have approached our job. As I said, 178 of the 332 bills that you are going to find in this stack, unanimous votes. You have got another 54 bills that are in this stack that had two-thirds majority support. I thought it was also interesting, in the same article, Senator Manchin has not received a rollcall vote on an amendment since June of 2013. He had recently aired his frustration. He said, ``I've never been in a less productive time in my life than I am right now in the United States Senate.'' Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that there are many people that probably share that thought over in the Senate because they are looking at the fact that things are not getting done in the Senate. Ninety- eight percent of these 332 bills have passed with support from both Democrats and Republicans. If we were in school, that would be making an A grade on bipartisan support for legislation that is coming out of this House. Our committee chairmen have worked hard to be able to do that, and we have, in good faith, passed these bills, and in good faith, we have moved these bills to the Senate. Right now, we are watching these bills sit on Harry Reid's desk. For whatever reason, he is choosing not to take these bills up. At this time, I would like to yield some time to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines).

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. I urge support of this amendment. The program in place at the CPSC has worked well. It is supported by both Republicans and Democrats. The process they are going through at CPSC is expending a tremendous amount of time and money. Looking at setting up a system that would force these retailers into legal negotiations and settlements is not the way to address this. The Fast Track program has been enormously successful. Former Chairman Brown worked during the Clinton administration--was appointed by President Clinton. They did a great job putting this program together. We should leave it in place. I urge a ``yes'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I also ask that Members of this Chamber recognize that the proposed rule change would slow a process meant to be conducted with speed and without red tape and would harm a system that ensures that consumer products sold in the U.S. are the safest in the world. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I appreciate that. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I find the gentleman's choice of words so interesting. I think he used ``mean'' and ``mean-spirited'' several times. Let me tell you what is mean-spirited. Mean-spirited is looking at future generations and saying, you didn't want this, you didn't ask for it, but guess what? You have got a $17 trillion bill on your head. Right now, the birth tax for every child born in this country is $54,000. Is that good? Of course not. Is that mean-spirited? You bet it is. You are saying you owe this money like it or not because Washington can't get its spending habits under control. Washington is spending money it does not have to pay for programs that my grandkids do not want. You are saying it is not the American way. Let me tell you something. Using borrowed money to pay for debts that have not been created by this government is not the way we do business. I would remind you of a Congressman from Tennessee who stood on this floor at one point in history, and he reminded the body that this was not their money to give. It is the taxpayers' money. That Member of Congress was Davy Crockett. This is the taxpayers' money. They expect us to be good stewards. Bailing out cities that have not been good stewards of their money is not what this body should be doing with Federal tax dollars that come into our coffers. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. It is amendment 080.

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would prevent the Federal Government from bailing out public pensioners in cities such as Detroit and Chicago. We have been reading for the past several months that the Obama administration has been in talks with the city of Detroit to transfer $100 million to the city. According to an April 16, 2014, article from the Detroit Free Press, the administration has looked to transfer $100 million from the Hardest Hit Fund to shore up Detroit's unfunded pension liability. The Hardest Hit Fund was created by the Obama administration in 2010 with money from the 2008 stimulus package. The money is meant to help States that have been adversely affected by the housing downturn, and that is according, again, to the Detroit Free Press. The article adds that: The $100 million in Federal money was discussed Tuesday night in breakneck negotiations that resulted in a tentative deal to reduce pension cuts for the city's retired general workforce. Mr. Chairman, I refuse to let Federal taxpayers be on the hook for unfunded pension liabilities made by Big Labor organizations. Cities such as Detroit, Chicago, and others where Big Labor has created extremely generous retirement benefits for public service workers are going to have to find their way out of the mess that they have created. Now, it is my understanding that the city of Detroit has reached an agreement with the State of Michigan to shore up Detroit's unfunded pension liability for the time being. However, it does not foreclose this as a possibility to occur in the future for Detroit or any other city where Big Labor agreements have caused financial destruction. According to an April 7, 2014, article from chicagobusiness.com, Chicago's unfunded pension liability stands at $19.5 billion. A February 20, 2013, article in Forbes notes that Federal bailouts of State pension funds ``would implicitly encourage States to keep spending and doling out entitlements, as doing so is popular for politicians, even if unsustainable.'' The article adds that this is especially true in liberal-leaning areas where public-sector labor unions have a lot of control. Mr. Chairman, we must foreclose the administration's bailout of Big Labor as a possibility. I refuse to stand by and watch hardworking taxpayers be on the hook for the irresponsible decisions of liberal, Big Labor groups.

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the work that the chairman has done on this bill, and our Appropriations Committee is to be commended. I think we do have to recognize Washington has a spending problem. They don't have a revenue problem. They have got a spending and a priority problem. We see it every single day. What I am asking is to engage those rank-and-file employees, have them find 1 penny on the dollar out of their appropriations that they could save in order to get this burden of debt off the backs of our children and grandchildren--one penny on the dollar. It has worked in the States. It works in our county and city governments. People like that and appreciate that you push for better stewardship, and it is the right thing for us to do as we watch the debt totals climb, skyrocket, and explode. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to prohibit any taxpayer funds from being used by the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, to preempt State municipal broadband laws. In other words, we don't need unelected Federal agency bureaucrats in Washington telling our States what they can and can't do with respect to protecting their limited taxpayer dollars in private enterprises. As a former State senator from Tennessee, I strongly believe in states' rights. I know that is an issue that is important to many of my colleagues in this Chamber. And that is why I found it deeply troubling that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has repeatedly stated this past year that he intends to preempt states' rights when it comes to the role of state policy over municipal broadband. Chairman Wheeler's statements posed a direct challenge on the constitutionality of States' sovereign functions. It wrongly assumes Washington knows what is best and forgets that the right answer doesn't always come from the top down. Mr. Chairman, 20 States across our country have held public debates and enacted laws that limit municipal broadband to varying degrees. These State legislatures and Governors have not only listened but have responded to the voices of their constituents. They are closer to the people than the chairman of the FCC. They are accountable to their voters. Mr. Chairman, States have spoken and said that we should be careful and deliberate in how we allow public entry into our vibrant communications marketplace, a sector of our economy that invests tens of billions of dollars each year, accounts for tens of thousands of jobs, and serves millions of consumers. Municipal broadband projects have had a mixed bag of results. There have been some successes and also some spectacular failures that have left taxpayers on the hook. For example, look at the failed UTOPIA project that has created massive disruption and is challenging taxpayers. In fact, it was recently reported that the ``residents of 11 Utah cities would be billed as much as $20 a month as part of a plan to salvage the State's once-heralded UTOPIA fiber optic network.'' That doesn't sound like a model the Federal Government needs to force against the wishes of State-elected officials. That doesn't sound like competition, and it sounds like another Federal bailout waiting to happen. State governments across the country understand and are more attentive to the needs of the American people than unelected Federal bureaucrats in Washington. That is why this past June I was joined by 59 of our colleagues in sending a letter to Chairman Wheeler stating our concerns and requesting a response to a list of questions, questions that we are still waiting for him to respond to. The U.S. Senate also sent a letter to the FCC on this issue, and they are, likewise, waiting for a response. It seems the FCC is content to tell our States how they will manage their sovereign economic affairs, but they won't answer to the Congress who is responsible for exercising oversight of the agency. Inserting the FCC into our State's economic and fiscal affairs sets a dangerous precedent and violates State sovereignty in a manner that warrants deeper examination. This Congress cannot sit idly by and let an independent agency trample on our states' rights. This is an issue that should be left to our States, and if it comes to a point where we need a national standard, then that debate should be held by Congress, not the FCC, and should be done with the participation of the American people. I urge adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), who has done a wonderful job bringing this bill to the floor. As I do with all of the appropriations bills, it is a focus of mine to come in and ask for an additional 1 percent cut on top of the great work that has already been done. I think it is important to give credit to our Appropriations Committee. This is a $21 billion bill, and it is appropriating $566 million less than what was appropriated in fiscal year 2014, and it is $2.2 billion less than what the President requested. That is to be commended. Our appropriations team has done a terrific job on beginning to rein in what the Federal Government spends. The Republican House leadership is to be commended for making their focus to get our fiscal house in order. I think we have to go a step further, and that is the purpose of my 1 percent across-the-board spending cut amendment. What we need to do now is to engage the bureaucracy, engage these Federal agencies, rank-and- file employees, to come to the table with their recommendations of how we continue to cut. We are $17 trillion in debt. We cannot continue to borrow 30 cents of every dollar that we spend. We have to think about the future for our children, our grandchildren. This is an amendment that we should all support because we do this for our children, for the sovereignty of our Nation, and for the fiscal health of our Nation for years to come. I think it is important to note that through the years, Governors have used across-the-board spending cuts, Democrat Governors--a former Democrat Governor from my home State of Tennessee. You have got the Democrat Governor in New York. You have got the Governor over in Missouri. They have all used across-the-board cuts. The American people like this idea. They like having the bureaucracy engaged in saving money. A Washington Post/ABC News poll from March 6, 2013, revealed that 61 percent of all Americans even supported a 5 percent across-the-board cut in Federal spending. It is time for us to rein this in and get our fiscal house in order. This is a way to save an additional $228 million. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note that what this amendment does is to allow those citizens in those cities, in those States that have made this decision--this is how they want to handle broadband--to do it. It gives the power to them. It keeps bureaucrats, sitting at the FCC, from making these decisions and overriding the wishes of our States and of those cities that are located therein. I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds for the voluntary recall proposed rule at the Consumer Product Safety Commission and would prevent them from moving forward with a rule that would cripple the highly successful voluntary recall program that is currently in place. For nearly 40 years, the CPSC and manufacturers and retailers, big and small, have partnered to ensure that the system of voluntary recalls is effectively reducing the safety risks that are posed to the public. In fact, the CPSC recently highlighted the success of the program, noting that 90 percent of the recalls through the award-winning Fast Track program are implemented within 20 days. The Fast Track program was created by former CPSC Chairman Ann Brown to greatly reduce the amount of time it takes recalls to be implemented. Instead of working to increase the efficiency of its programs, the CPSC's proposed rule change effectively kills its most successful program. On May 30, Ann Brown, a Democratic former Chairman appointed by President Clinton, sent a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee expressing deep concerns over the impacts of the Commission's proposed rule. Concerning the substantive provisions of the proposal, former Chairman Brown stated: A Fast Track procedure would be rendered impossible under these circumstances. The success of this Fast Track program is based on the shared commitment of the Commission and the private sector to remove harmful products from the marketplace. The Commission, however, now seeks to transform the voluntary recall process into a legal negotiation equivalent to a settlement agreement. The proposed substantive changes would require companies seeking to implement a recall to hire an attorney to negotiate binding and enforceable terms with the CPSC staff. This places significant burdens on small businesses that use the Fast Track program because the program allows them to work with the Commission staff without having to pay expensive legal fees. The CPSC should not discourage companies from working closely, efficiently, and effectively with the CPSC when potential hazards or defects are identified. As the letter from former CPSC Chairman Brown shows, this is not a political issue. Senators from Pennsylvania--Casey and Toomey, a Democrat and Republican, respectively--submitted a letter in January for the docket, raising concerns about the proposed changes. Senator King sent the Commission a letter in March expressing similar concerns, and I include these letters, Mr. Chairman, from former Chairman Brown and from the Senators into the Record. Ann Brown, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, May 30, 2014. Hon. Fred S. Upton, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC. Hon. Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Upton and Ranking Minority Member Waxman, I had the privilege of serving as Chairman of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission from March 1994 until November 1, 2001. During my time as Chairman, we prevented numerous deaths and injuries through enforcement actions, product recalls and working with consumers, consumer groups and firms regulated by the Commission. Product safety is best accomplished when government, Industry and consumers work together. Under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of consumer products must report certain potential product hazards to the Commission. They must report immediately if they obtain information which reasonably supports the conclusion that a product (1) fails to comply with certain mandatory or voluntary standards, (2) contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard, or (3) creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death. If the Commission believes that a product presents a substantial product hazard to the public, it may pursue corrective action. Early in my Chairmanship, I learned that some number of companies were offering to conduct product recalls but because of entrenched procedures, those firms were not allowed to proceed with a recall until the CPSC staff performed a technical evaluation of the product involved, agreed that there was a product safety problem by making a ``Preliminary Determination'' (PD) of hazard, and then sent a letter to the firm advising it of the preliminary determination of hazard and requesting a product recall. This process could and often did take many months-months without a recall, months where consumers were at risk, even though the firm was ready, willing and able to proceed with a recall at the time of its report. We changed this bureaucratic process early in my tenure as Chairman by creating the Fast Track Product Recall program in August 1995. Originally called the ``No PD'' program, firms who reported to CPSC, identified a product safety problem, agreed to and initiated a recall within 20 working days of their report, no longer required a staff technical evaluation of the problem reported. Rather than performing a technical evaluation to confirm the product problem reported upon, the CPSC staff evaluated the remedy proposed to assure that it adequately addressed the problem identified and spent time working with the firm on conducting the product recall. The Commission made this Fast Track program permanent on March 27, 1997, and it has been hugely successful. More than one-half of all CPSC recalls are now conducted through the Fast Track Program. Recalls conducted through this program benefit consumers, the recalling firm and the CPSC. Recalls are announced faster better protecting consumers from injury. Recalling firms do not receive a letter stating that the CPSC staff has preliminarily determined their product is a substantial product hazard. And the government spend less resources investigating a product that a company has already agreed should be recalled. The CPSC staff received a ``Hammer'' Award from Vice President Albert Gore's National Partnership for Reinventing Government for the Fast Track Product Recall Program. This award honored federal employees for significant improvements to customer service and for making the government work more efficiently. Also in 1998, the Fast Track Program was named a winner of the prestigious Innovations in American Government award, an awards program of the Ford Foundation and Harvard University, administered by Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government in partnership with the Council for Excellence in Government. Now this award winning program appears to face the risk of being unintentionally undermined by a rule proposed by the CPSC in November 2013 that is Intended to enhance voluntary recalls by setting forth principles and guidelines for the content and form of voluntary recall notices that firms provide as part of corrective action plans. One of the CPSC's proposals is to prohibit firms desiring to conduct a voluntary recall from disclaiming that there is a hazard presented by their product unless the Commission agrees to the disclaimer. I am concerned that this proposal if adopted could undermine the efficacy of the Fast Track program. Another proposal would classify a voluntary Corrective Action Plan (CAP) as ``legally binding'' thus transforming a CAP into a Consent Decree, potentially delaying an otherwise effective recall weeks or even months due to haggling over legalities. A Fast Track procedure would be rendered impossible under these circumstances. CPSC urges firms to err on the side of caution by reporting potential product safety problems and conducting recalls. It is my understanding that virtually every firm that reports under the CPSC mandatory reporting requirement and requests to participate in a Fast Track recall, asserts that their product does not present a substantial product hazard, but nonetheless they wish to conduct a recall. If reporting firms are not allowed to make this disclaimer, they have no incentive to participate in the Fast Track Program. Not making the disclaimer may be perceived in product liability litigation as akin to admitting that the product reported on is a substantial product hazard. If so, reporting firms might just as well report to CPSC, not offer to conduct a recall, and take the chance that the CPSC staff might conclude their product is not a substantial product hazard and that no recall is necessary. If this occurs, recalls would be delayed, CPSC would be required to use substantial technical resources to evaluate products so that the staff can determine whether to make a preliminary determination of hazard, and consumers are left unprotected potentially for many months. I respectfully request that the Committee urge the Commission to consider its proposed rule carefully and to assure that it does not adversely affect CPSC's Fast Track Product Recall Program. Sincerely, Ann Brown.