Diane Black

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will improve cost sharing for dam safety repairs and will promote transparency at the Army Corps of Engineers. To start, let me tell you about how this issue has impacted my district. Recently, the Corps of Engineers executed a dam repair project in Tennessee's Center Hill Lake. That is all well and good, as we like to keep our dams and our waterways up to code; but the problems came when the Corps failed to communicate to localities in my district as to how the dam repair project would be classified and, therefore, what their financial responsibilities would be. Federal statute says that the Army Corps of Engineers can designate dam projects as being in one of two categories: ``safety assurance'' or ``major rehabilitation.'' If the project is classified as a safety assurance, the costs to the utility providers, townships, and other stakeholders may be minimal; but if the project is classified as a major rehabilitation, you could have a scenario like what occurred in my district, in which the town of Cookeville, Tennessee, is now on the hook for a $1.5 million repair bill that they had not budgeted for because they had never been told to do so. You know how this story ends, Mr. Chairman. The city has to pass along those costs to someone. So my constituents in Cookeville could be paying higher water bills for the foreseeable future all because the Corps of Engineers wouldn't be up front with them about what they would owe. This story is not unique. A December 2015 GAO report studied nine different dam projects nationwide and found that, across the board, the Corps did very little to communicate to local communities what their cost-sharing responsibilities would be. The report further found that, in some instances, the Corps had failed to apply a provision known as the state-of-the-art provision that reduces the sponsors' share of the costs in these projects. That means, Mr. Chairman, that communities like Cookeville, in my district, may have been on the hook for bills they never would have needed to have paid if only the Corps had been transparent and had followed the rules. Mr. Chairman, I may not be able to get Cookeville or the other communities that are cited in the GAO report their money back, but I can make sure that this never happens again. That is really what my amendment seeks to do. In short, this amendment directs the Army Corps of Engineers' district offices to effectively communicate with the sponsors and to implement cost-sharing agreements during dam safety repair projects, not afterwards. It will ensure that these arrangements are shared with all stakeholders so that in others' towns and in my town they aren't left holding the bag. I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I think it is pretty clear what this amendment does. I do want to say that we have worked with the Corps of Engineers, which helped us to draft this amendment. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Halt Tax Increases on the Middle Class and Seniors Act, and I thank the sponsor, Ms. McSally, for her work on this important legislation. Under ObamaCare, more Americans have been pushed into high deductible plans that force them to incur massive out-of-pocket costs before insurance kicks in. Yet, just as Americans are shelling out more for health costs, ObamaCare upped the amount of money you have to spend on medical expenses in order to qualify for a tax deduction. Seniors initially got a reprieve from this ObamaCare tax hike, but that ends next year. This means that, on top of dealing with ObamaCare's cuts to Medicare, the harmful medical device tax, and the looming threat of the law's Independent Payment Advisory Board--or, commonly called, IPAB--seniors will also be forced to adjust to a new tax rule that hits them right in their pocketbook. This is yet another example of how the President's healthcare law hurts the very people that it pretends to help. Mr. Speaker, I have always said that, until we can repeal and replace ObamaCare altogether, we must act to ease the damage of this law wherever possible. That is why I am supporting today's legislation. This bill repeals the ObamaCare tax increase and reinstates the previous threshold of medical expenses as a portion of income that qualify for a tax deduction. It just makes sense that, if Americans are already paying more for their health expenses, Washington shouldn't pile on with a tax hike to make matters worse. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call Number 467 (H.R. 5631), which took place Thursday July 14, 2016; I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted AYE. I firmly stand with my colleagues in the House in support of the Iran Accountability Act of 2016.

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. I thank my colleague for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule to allow for the consideration of my bill, S. 304, the Conscience Protection Act. The Members of this body represent a broad array of views on matters of life and abortion. But, surely, we can all at least agree on this: that nobody should ever be forced to participate in the act of abortion against one's will. That is what my legislation is about. As it stands today, the conscience rights of pro-life Americans are not being consistently upheld. As a matter of fact, nurses have been required to assist in abortions despite their moral objections, and States like California and New York are now requiring every insurance plan, including those by churches and Christian universities, to include elective abortion coverage. This is wrong. Madam Speaker, I am a nurse. I have been so for more than 45 years, and I still keep my license today. I love my job, but I would never sacrifice my view on the sanctity of life in order to keep it, and I shouldn't have to. Being an American has always meant experiencing the freedom to live according to one's deeply held beliefs at home, at work, and in the public square. My bill simply ensures that that will remain the case. Think about it this way: a search of the Congressional Record returns over 1,300 results for the phrase ``right to choose.'' My colleagues across the aisle use that term often. Of course, their argument leaves no choice for the unborn child in the womb, but it stands to reason that if politicians will protect that right to choose, then they must protect the other right to choose as well, the right not to be a forced partner in the practice of abortion. That is simply what my bill would do. The government recognizes the importance of protecting conscience rights in other arenas: ObamaCare prohibits government discrimination against entities that do not participate in assisted suicide, and Federal employees are not required to participate in Federal death penalty executions. Why should abortion be any different? Madam Speaker, if Americans can't abide by their own consciences, particularly on a matter of a deeply held belief such as this, then we have lost one of our most basic freedoms there is. Just to reiterate that which has already been said, this bill does not change the law of today on abortion. It does not. I challenge my colleagues to show me in the language of the bill where it does. It will remain exactly the way it is. This bill does not affect women's access to abortion. As a matter of fact, even in the bill, we make sure that that access is still there in the bill's language, and this bill does not affect employers in the services that they give to their employees. Today, we can change this. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee, my colleague and my friend. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of my bill, S. 304, the Conscience Protection Act of 2016. This legislation would prevent governments from penalizing or in any way discriminating against a healthcare provider for its refusing to participate in an abortion. In doing so, it would codify an act, known as the Weldon amendment, which has been attached to the annual spending bill since 2004 with bipartisan support. Importantly, the bill would also take the law a step further in allowing for a civil right of action so that the victims of abortion discrimination would have their day in court. Today, if you believe you have been discriminated against on the basis of refusing to be involved in an abortion, you appeal to the Obama administration's Department of Health and Human Services. In the case of Cathy DeCarlo, a pro-life nurse from New York who was forced by her employer to assist in the abortion of a 22-week pre-born baby, it took HHS 3 years to close its investigation into her case. In California, where the Department of Managed Health Care required all insurance plans in the State to offer the coverage of elective abortion, the HHS took 2 years to determine that no violation of the law had occurred; this despite the fact that the churches and the Christian universities are now required to subsidize abortion through their insurance plans. Congress must step in to clarify and to strengthen our laws so that the conscience rights of every American are protected, because, Madam Speaker, if we lose the right to live according to our own convictions, particularly on the matter as deeply affecting as abortion, we don't have much left, do we? After all, it was Thomas Jefferson who reminded us: ``No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of civil authority.'' President Obama, himself, echoed this statement in 2009, saying, ``Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion.'' If my colleagues won't listen to the pleas of the pro-life Americans who are asking for the protection of these most basic rights, maybe they will listen to the words of their own President. With this bill, I am not seeking to change anyone's mind on abortion; though I hope that one day I can. I am not asking my colleagues to rule anyone's abortion to be illegal; though every act of abortion absolutely breaks my heart. I am not asking my colleagues to withhold a dime from a single abortion provider; although I will continue to fight to stop the spending of my constituents' dollars to the industries that take human life. Today I simply ask the Members of this body to allow the millions of Americans who believe as I do--in the sanctity of every human life--to abide by those beliefs without having them trampled upon by their own government. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this very compassionate, reasonable, and modest bill.

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, today we heard quite a few claims that were made, and I would like to set the Record straight. First of all, the bill before us today simply protects the other right to choose, that is the right of healthcare providers to choose not to be involved in abortion. The bill does not change the legality of abortion in any way. Some of my colleagues have raised concerns regarding how this bill may affect life-threatening cases. As a nurse who has worked in the emergency room, I can tell you that medical personnel always--always-- act to save patients who come through their doors, including pregnant women and their babies. It is that compassion and that drive to protect life that brought them to the medical profession in the first place. Furthermore, stabilizing a woman when her life is in danger is the law. It is already the law. There is a standard of care and there is a law. Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and the Active Labor Act, doctors and hospitals are required to stabilize emergency patients, including pregnant women. So to be absolutely sure there is no confusion on this point, the Conscience Protection Act includes a rule of construction that clarifies those protections and EMTALA will continue to coexist side by side, offering women the assurance that they will be cared for in these situations. We protect insurance plans and employers purchasing such plans from participation in abortion in this bill because that is the very scenario that has prompted the consideration of the bill. Abortion is a highly controversial issue on which Americans have a wide range of views. It is reasonable to allow anyone who does not want to be a party to abortion to be able to opt out. Recognizing this point, even President Obama's healthcare law, ObamaCare, allows States and insurance companies to opt out of including abortion in the health plans offered on the exchanges. My bill simply ensures that the healthcare providers, as defined in the bill, are not forced or coerced to participate in a brutal procedure that is often painful to an unborn child. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.

Mrs. BLACK

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

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to protect American workers and small manufacturing businesses from a misguided provision in a proposed EPA rule. Last year, the EPA released its phase 2 fuel efficiency and emissions standard for new medium- and heavy-duty trucks. While many in the trucking industry are not opposed to the phase 2 rule as a whole, one section in the proposal wrongly applies these standards to what are known as glider kits. A glider kit is a group of vehicle parts that can include a brand new truck frame, cab, or axles, but which does not include an engine or transmission. Since a glider kit is less expensive to purchase than a new heavy-duty truck and can extend the investment and working life of a truck, businesses and drivers with a damaged or older vehicle may choose to purchase a glider kit instead of buying a new one. Gliders extend the useful life of truck engines while frequently having a higher resale price against comparable trucks. Due to their rebuilt engines, they can also often be a more fuel-efficient option, allowing trucking companies and drivers to use less fuel. Unfortunately, the EPA is proposing to apply the new phase 2 standards to glider kits even though gliders are not really new vehicles. Further, it is unclear whether the EPA even has the authority to regulate the replacement parts like gliders. While the EPA's stated goal with phase 2 is to reduce emissions, the agency has not studied the emissions impact of remanufactured engines and gliders compared to new vehicles. It appears the agency's actual motivation is to force businesses and drivers that would like to use glider kits to instead buy new trucks. Applying the phase 2 standards to glider kits would certainly harm the workers and owners in the glider industry, leading to possible closure of these businesses and job losses at both manufacturers and dealerships. Additionally, the EPA's rule would limit consumer choice in the marketplace. Under this proposal, many operators and businesses would simply choose to continue using current vehicles, leaving older trucks on the road longer. My amendment would protect these businesses and American manufacturing jobs by prohibiting the EPA from finalizing, implementing, administering, or even enforcing phase 2 standards on glider kits. To be clear, this amendment would not--and I repeat, would not--bar the EPA from implementing the whole phase 2 rule for medium and heavy- duty trucks. It would simply clarify that glider kits and glider vehicles are not new trucks as the EPA claims. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to help support American manufacturing and stop the EPA from attempting to shut down the glider industry. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) the chairman.

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chair, this proposed language from the EPA is improper and ill-conceived with no regard to jobs. If the EPA is going to promulgate rules that raise the costs and hurt jobs in districts like mine, the least they can do is to have a few facts prepared to back them. Communities where these kits are manufactured are already struggling with above average unemployment, and would see more job opportunities put out of reach. Furthermore, there seems to have been little time for the glider industry to even respond and to have little to no economic consideration given prior. Our constituent, dealers and employees, glider truck owners and operators, and remanufacturing businesses will disproportionately be affected by the EPA's decision to effectively ban the products that they sell, service, and drive. The U.S. truck industry has been a bright spot in the recovery of the national economy, and applying new standards to the gliders would increase expenses for our businesses and their drivers. Congress has recognized the value of remanufactured parts and components. The United States Senate and House of Representatives have voted overwhelmingly in support of legislation, the Federal Vehicle Repair Cost Savings Act, which was signed into law just last year, to encourage Federal agencies to consider using remanufactured parts in the Federal vehicle fleet. So it is happening in the Federal Government. This is going to affect the private sector. To restrict the usage of manufactured engines under this rulemaking appears to be counter to the congressional intent. I will reiterate that gliders, by definition, aren't a motor vehicle, and they therefore should be used outside the EPA's authority. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the Gosar amendment to cut off the funding to sanctuary cities through the financial appropriations bill. When I came to Congress in 2011, I quickly cosponsored the Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act, and I have worked to hold these governments accountable ever since. Here is why. We all know that, for years now, Congress has ceded more and more power to the executive branch. But less talked about is the fact that, for just as long, Congress has allowed more than 200 State and municipal jurisdictions to do the same exact thing. And this is just plain wrong. Sanctuary cities thumb their nose at Congress; they ignore Federal law; and they endanger the lives of their citizens. While I urge passage of this amendment, I also believe that we must act by passing my bill, the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, which takes a broad-based approach to defunding sanctuary city policies once and for all. I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) for his leadership on this issue. I support his amendment.

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call Number 349 for final passage of H.R. 4854 and Roll Call Number 350 for final passage of H.R. 4855, which took place Tuesday July 5, 2016, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted Aye on both bills.

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act. As we debate this legislation, I think back to June of 2013, when victims of the IRS targeting testified before our Ways and Means Committee, including someone from my own State, a fellow Tennesseean, Kevin Kookogey, who is the founder of Linchpins of Liberty. This legislation protects groups like Kevin's from further IRS abuse by repealing the so-called Schedule B requirement that compels tax exempt organizations to turn over names, addresses, and other personal identifiable information of their donors. Now, we know this information has been misused before and that the IRS, as has already been said, doesn't use this information to determine a tax exempt status anyway. So why in a free country would these groups need to turn over such personal information in the first place? We should all be asking ourselves that question. This information is not needed, and it will protect those who choose to give to those organizations without having their information misused. Let's fix this problem today. I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 5053.

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call Number 269 for passage of H. Con. Res. 129, Roll Call Number 270 for passage of H.R. 4906, Roll Call Number 271 for passage of H.R. 4904, Roll Call Number 272 for passage of H.R. 1815 which took place Tuesday, June 7, 2016, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted Aye on Roll Call Number 269 for passage of H. Con. Res. 129, on Roll Call Number 270 for passage of H.R. 4906, on Roll Call Number 271 for passage of H.R. 4904, and on Roll Call Number 272 for passage of H.R. 1815.

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call Number 273 on Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res 767, Roll Call Number 274 on Agreeing to the Resolution of H. Res 767, Roll Call Number 275 on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended H.R. 3826, Roll Call Number 276 On Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 4775, Roll Call Number 277 On Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 4775, Roll Call Number 278 On Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 4775, Roll Call Number 279 On Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 4775, Roll Call Number 280 On Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 4775, Roll Call Number 281 On Motion to Recommit with Instructions for H.R. 4775, Roll Call Number 282 On Passage of H.R. 4775 which took place Wednesday, June 8, 2016, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted Aye on Roll Call Number 273 on Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res 767, on Roll Call Number 274 on Agreeing to the Resolution of H. Res 767, on Roll Call Number 275 on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended H.R. 3826 and on Roll Call Number 282 for passage of H.R. 4775. I would have voted Nay on Roll Call Number 276 On Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 4775, on Roll Call Number 277 On Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 4775, on Roll Call Number 278 On Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 4775, on Roll Call Number 279 On Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 4775, on Roll Call Number 280 On Agreeing to the Amendment of H.R. 4775.

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call Number 283 on Consideration of the Resolution for H. Res. 771 which took place Thursday, June 9, 2016, I am not recorded because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted Aye on Roll Call Number 283 on Consideration of the Resolution for H. Res. 771.

Mrs. BLACK

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 767, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 89) expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H. Con. Res. 89, currently under consideration.

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 89, which takes a strong stand against the carbon tax that would hurt American families, workers, and job creators. As the President closes out his time in office, he would like nothing more than to ram through more of his harmful energy agenda. Just look at the President's budget this year. Among the $3.4 trillion in tax hikes he proposed, the President included a $10 per barrel tax on oil. This tax alone would cause gas prices to increase by an estimated 25 cents per gallon. With a carbon tax, there would be a tax hike on production, distribution, and the use of not only oil but also of natural gas and any other form of energy that emits carbon. Such a tax would have many serious impacts on our economy by making day-to-day life more expensive for families throughout this country. First, a carbon tax could drive up the cost of energy for both the producers and the consumers. This translates to larger energy bills that eat up even more of Americans' take-home pay, especially during the hottest and coldest months of the year. Second, a carbon tax would destroy well-paying jobs throughout the American energy sector--a sector that has fueled significant job growth throughout the country. Third, a carbon tax would deliver a direct hit to working families and have compound effects that would reach all corners of the economy. In fact, a carbon tax would increase the cost of, virtually, every good manufactured or service performed in the United States, including everyday necessities. If a good requires energy to make or transport, which most do, taxes on that energy are, essentially, a tax on that good. As a result, Americans would have to pay more for everything-- from milk to clothing to school supplies. Finally, to make this bad idea even worse, we know that a carbon tax would hurt those who are living in poverty and those who are on fixed incomes more than anyone else. Put simply, a carbon tax would make it harder for us to grow our economy and help working families and small businesses succeed. We all want an all-of-the-above energy approach that supports new innovations, not a targeted tax hike on specific industries. Thanks to the leadership of Whip Scalise, Congress will pass this bill today and send it to the Senate, and we will send a clear message to the people in our districts, as well as to the Obama White House, that we do not support this extreme tax. Instead, we will continue to pass legislation that grows our economy and that helps more Americans get back to work. After all, last week, we received the worst jobs report in almost 6 years. It is more important than ever that we move forward with a bold, pro-growth agenda, not another expensive Washington tax. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a member of the Ways and Means Committee and the chairman of the Tax Policy Subcommittee.

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a colleague of mine and a member of the Ways and Means Committee.