[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 16, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S275-S277]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. ERNST (for herself, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Risch,
Mr. Cotton, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Crapo, Mrs.
Blackburn, Mr. Sasse, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Rubio, Mrs. Fischer,
Mr. Moran, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Thune, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Inhofe, Mr.
Hawley, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Romney, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hoeven, Mr.
Roberts, Mr. Daines, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Paul, Mr.
Boozman, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Barrasso, and Mr. Scott of South
Carolina):
S. 141. A bill to prohibit Federal funding of Planned Parenthood
Federation of America; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Ms. ERNST. Thank you very much to my colleagues, the Senator from
Nebraska, the Senator from Mississippi, as well as our other colleague,
the Senator from Missouri. Thank you for joining us on the floor today
to express our support for those who march for life. Thank you so much.
As my colleagues can attest, the invaluable message being shared by
the pro-life community this week has implications far beyond that of
simply the March for Life. As I travel across my home State of Iowa, I
see this life-affirming message in our pregnancy resource centers,
maternity homes, and adoption agencies. These comprehensive on-the-
ground services provide women and families with service options that
are changing and saving lives every single day.
These life-affirming services are the foundation of the pro-life
movement across our Nation, and I sincerely thank those centers and
agencies for their critical work to fight for vulnerable lives
throughout the year.
I see the same message in the remarkable stories of individual
families, such as the Pickering family from Newton, IA. I have had the
opportunity to share the phenomenal story of Micah Pickering on the
Senate floor before. As you may recall, Micah was born at just 20 weeks
postfertilization. He was only about the size of a bag of M&M's--the
size of the palm of my hand. That was Micah. Yet Micah was also a
perfect, fully-formed baby boy, with 10 fingers and 10 toes. In fact,
no one makes his case more eloquently than Micah himself.
When I first met Micah, I had a picture of him displayed in my office
from the day that he was born--again, the size of the palm of my hand.
Micah immediately ran up to that picture. He pointed at it, and he
said: ``Baby.''
Micah recognized right away that even at just 20 weeks
postfertilization, the humanity of the child was undeniable.
Micah's parents and the doctors and nurses at the University of Iowa
Hospitals & Clinics recognized this humanity, as well, and were
dedicated to his survival. Today Micah is a happy, healthy, and
energetic 6-year-old boy.
Stories like Micah's are extraordinary reminders that the life-
affirming services, for which the pro-life community marches, have real
and significant impacts on the lives of families across America.
Since coming to Congress, I have also tried to do my part to ensure
that this message from those in my home State of Iowa and from other
communities all across the Nation is taken back and turned into action
in Washington. For me, that has meant supporting crucial pro-life
initiatives, such as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,
which would prevent abortions after 20 weeks of development--the very
same age at which my dear Micah was born.
Another critical piece of legislation, the Born-Alive Abortion
Survivors Protection Act, would create concrete enforcement provisions
to hold abortionists accountable if they do not provide the same degree
of care to a baby who survives an abortion as they would any child born
naturally premature at that same age.
Fighting for commonsense legislation that protects innocent life has
been a priority of mine in the Senate. But Congress must also do more
to ensure that taxpayers are not forced to subsidize abortion or the
abortion industry giants, such as Planned Parenthood.
During the 115th Congress, I led the fight in the Senate to pass
critical legislation, which was signed into law in 2017, that ensures
States are not forced to provide entities like Planned Parenthood, the
Nation's single largest provider of abortions, with Federal title X
dollars.
I am grateful to have worked with former Congresswoman Diane Black,
my Senate colleagues, and President Trump to make sure States are not
forced to award providers like Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars
like title X family planning grants.
As I have stated time and again, taxpayers should not be forced to
foot the bill for roughly one-half billion dollars annually for an
organization like Planned Parenthood, which exhibits such disrespect
for human life. With that in mind, today I reintroduced legislation
that would defund Planned Parenthood while still protecting vital
funding for women's healthcare services. Contrary to what they claim,
Planned Parenthood is not the Nation's preeminent provider of women's
healthcare. In fact, Planned Parenthood facilities do not even perform
in-house mammograms; something so simple is not performed by Planned
Parenthood.
On the other hand, just as my colleague the senior Senator from
Nebraska stated, community health centers continue to greatly outnumber
Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide and provide more comprehensive
preventive and primary health services, including cervical and breast
cancer screenings, diagnostic laboratory and radiology services, well
childcare, prenatal and postnatal care, immunizations, and so much
more. Access to comprehensive health services is absolutely critical to
women and families across this Nation, and federally qualified health
centers offer such services, regardless of a person's ability to pay.
A recent GAO study that I requested, along with many of my colleagues
in both the House and the Senate, showed that over a 3-year period,
federally qualified health centers served 25 million individuals
compared to only 2.4 million individuals that Planned Parenthood
served. That is more than 10 times more people served by those
healthcare centers.
Furthermore, a recent Marist poll shows that 54 percent of Americans
do not support taxpayer dollars going toward abortions. While there are
Federal regulations that prevent Federal dollars from directly covering
abortion, these laws are governed by a complicated patchwork of
policies and funding riders that must be reapproved during the
appropriations process every single year.
Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has been attached to appropriations
bills in order to block Federal funds from paying for abortions.
However, this policy, which once drew widespread bipartisan support,
has recently been under attack. For the first time ever, the Affordable
Care Act authorized and appropriated funds that bypassed the Hyde
amendment funding restrictions. In 2016, the Democratic Party added the
repeal of the Hyde amendment protections to its Presidential platform.
The Hyde amendment is a longstanding and critical provision that
protects Federal dollars and ensures that taxpayers are not footing the
bill for abortion procedures. That is why I support the No Taxpayer
Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of
2019, which was recently reintroduced in the Senate. This legislation
would permanently codify the Hyde amendment, ensuring that funding
restrictions remain in place and are applied to all Federal programs.
Furthermore, this bill takes important steps to eliminate certain tax
benefits related to abortions and improve disclosure requirements
related to insurance coverage of abortion.
Preventing our taxpayer dollars from paying for abortion procedures--
a position that a majority of Americans agree with--should not be a
complicated process vulnerable to partisan
[[Page S276]]
attack. Congress must take steps to ensure that permanent protections
apply governmentwide.
As such, I urge the Senate to consider the No Taxpayer Funding for
Abortion and Abortion Insurance Disclosure Act on the floor in order to
protect not only our taxpayer dollars but the innocent lives of our
most vulnerable.
I appreciate all of the marchers who will be coming to Washington,
DC, in the following days and spending their time in a most worthy
effort, which is our annual March for Life. God bless them all. Of
course, God bless my Iowans for that journey.
Thank you very much.
______
By Mr. THUNE (for himself and Mr. Markey):
S. 151. A bill to deter criminal robocall violations and improve
enforcement of section 227(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 151
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Telephone Robocall Abuse
Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act'' or the ``TRACED
Act''.
SEC. 2. FORFEITURE.
(a) In General.--Section 227 of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 227) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Civil forfeiture.--
``(A) In general.--Any person that is determined by the
Commission, in accordance with paragraph (3) or (4) of
section 503(b), to have violated any provision of this
subsection shall be liable to the United States for a
forfeiture penalty pursuant to section 503(b)(1). The amount
of the forfeiture penalty determined under this subparagraph
shall be determined in accordance with subparagraphs (A)
through (F) of section 503(b)(2).
``(B) Violation with intent.--Any person that is determined
by the Commission, in accordance with paragraph (3) or (4) of
section 503(b), to have violated this subsection with the
intent to cause such violation shall be liable to the United
States for a forfeiture penalty. The amount of the forfeiture
penalty determined under this subparagraph shall be equal to
an amount determined in accordance with subparagraphs (A)
through (F) of section 503(b)(2) plus an additional penalty
not to exceed $10,000.
``(C) Recovery.--Any forfeiture penalty determined under
subparagraph (A) or (B) shall be recoverable under section
504(a).
``(D) Procedure.--No forfeiture liability shall be
determined under subparagraph (A) or (B) against any person
unless such person receives the notice required by paragraph
(3) or (4) of section 503(b).
``(E) Statute of limitations.--No forfeiture penalty shall
be determined or imposed against any person--
``(i) under subparagraph (A) if the violation charged
occurred more than 1 year prior to the date of issuance of
the required notice or notice of apparent liability; and
``(ii) under subparagraph (B) if the violation charged
occurred more than 3 years prior to the date of issuance of
the required notice or notice of apparent liability.
``(F) Rule of construction.--Notwithstanding any law to the
contrary, the Commission may not determine or impose a
forfeiture penalty on a person under both subparagraphs (A)
and (B) based on the same conduct.''; and
(2) by striking subsection (h).
(b) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section
shall not affect any action or proceeding commenced before
and pending on the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Deadline for Regulations.--The Federal Communications
Commission shall prescribe regulations to implement the
amendments made by this section not later than 270 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. CALL AUTHENTICATION.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Stir/shaken authentication framework.--The term ``STIR/
SHAKEN authentication framework'' means the secure telephone
identity revisited and signature-based handling of asserted
information using tokens standards proposed by the
information and communications technology industry to attach
a certificate of authenticity to each phone to verify the
source of each call.
(2) Voice service.--The term ``voice service''--
(A) means any service that is interconnected with the
public switched telephone network and that furnishes voice
communications to an end user using resources from the North
American Numbering Plan or any successor to the North
American Numbering Plan adopted by the Commission under
section 251(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 251(e)(1)); and
(B) includes--
(i) transmissions from a telephone facsimile machine,
computer, or other device to a telephone facsimile machine;
and
(ii) without limitation, any service that enables real-
time, two-way voice communications, including any service
that requires internet protocol-compatible customer premises
equipment (commonly known as ``CPE'') and permits out-bound
calling, whether or not the service is one-way or two-way
voice over internet protocol.
(b) Authentication Framework.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), not
later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Federal Communications Commission shall require a
provider of voice service to implement the STIR/SHAKEN
authentication framework in the internet protocol networks of
voice service providers.
(2) Implementation.--The Federal Communications Commission
shall not take the action described in paragraph (1) if the
Commission determines that a provider of voice service, not
later than 12 months after the date of enactment of this
Act--
(A) has adopted the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework
for calls on the internet protocol networks of voice service
providers;
(B) has agreed voluntarily to participate with other
providers of voice service in the STIR/SHAKEN authentication
framework;
(C) has begun to implement the STIR/SHAKEN authentication
framework; and
(D) will be capable of fully implementing the STIR/SHAKEN
authentication framework not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(3) Implementation report.--Not later than 12 months after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications
Commission shall submit to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee
on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a
report on the determination required under paragraph (2),
which shall include--
(A) an analysis of the extent to which providers of a voice
service have implemented the STIR/SHAKEN authentication
framework; and
(B) an assessment of the efficacy of the STIR/SHAKEN
authentication framework, as being implemented under this
section, in addressing all aspects of call authentication.
(4) Review and revision or replacement.--Not later than 3
years after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 3
years thereafter, the Federal Communications Commission,
after public notice and an opportunity for comment, shall--
(A) assess the efficacy of the call authentication
framework implemented under this section;
(B) based on the assessment under subparagraph (A), revise
or replace the call authentication framework under this
section if the Commission determines it is in the public
interest to do so; and
(C) submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and
Commerce of the House of Representatives a report on the
findings of the assessment under subparagraph (A) and on any
actions to revise or replace the call authentication
framework under subparagraph (B).
(5) Extension of implementation deadline.--The Federal
Communications Commission may extend any deadline for the
implementation of a call authentication framework required
under this section by 12 months or such further amount of
time as the Commission determines necessary if the Commission
determines that purchasing or upgrading equipment to support
call authentication would constitute a substantial hardship
for a provider or category of providers.
(c) Safe Harbor and Other Regulations.--
(1) In general.--The Federal Communications Commission
shall promulgate rules--
(A) establishing when a provider of voice service may block
a voice call based, in whole or in part, on information
provided by the call authentication framework under
subsection (b);
(B) establishing a safe harbor for a provider of voice
service from liability for unintended or inadvertent blocking
of calls or for the unintended or inadvertent
misidentification of the level of trust for individual calls
based, in whole or in part, on information provided by the
call authentication framework under subsection (b); and
(C) establishing a process to permit a calling party
adversely affected by the information provided by the call
authentication framework under subsection (b) to verify the
authenticity of the calling party's calls.
(2) Considerations.--In establishing the safe harbor under
paragraph (1), the Federal Communications Commission shall
consider limiting the liability of a provider based on the
extent to which the provider--
(A) blocks or identifies calls based, in whole or in part,
on the information provided by the call authentication
framework under subsection (b);
(B) implemented procedures based, in whole or in part, on
the information provided by the call authentication framework
under subsection (b); and
(C) used reasonable care.
(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
preclude the Federal Communications Commission from
initiating a rulemaking pursuant to its existing statutory
authority.
[[Page S277]]
SEC. 4. PROTECTIONS FROM SPOOFED CALLS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and consistent with the call
authentication framework under section 3, the Federal
Communications Commission shall initiate a rulemaking to help
protect a subscriber from receiving unwanted calls or text
messages from a caller using an unauthenticated number.
(b) Considerations.--In promulgating rules under subsection
(a), the Federal Communications Commission shall consider--
(1) the Government Accountability Office report on
combating the fraudulent provision of misleading or
inaccurate caller identification required by section 503(c)
of division P of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2018
(Public Law 115-141);
(2) the best means of ensuring that a subscriber or
provider has the ability to block calls from a caller using
an unauthenticated North American Numbering Plan number;
(3) the impact on the privacy of a subscriber from
unauthenticated calls;
(4) the effectiveness in verifying the accuracy of caller
identification information; and
(5) the availability and cost of providing protection from
the unwanted calls or text messages described in subsection
(a).
SEC. 5. INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with
the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, shall
convene an interagency working group to study Government
prosecution of violations of section 227(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)).
(b) Duties.--In carrying out the study under subsection
(a), the interagency working group shall--
(1) determine whether, and if so how, any Federal laws,
including regulations, policies, and practices, or budgetary
or jurisdictional constraints inhibit the prosecution of such
violations;
(2) identify existing and potential Federal policies and
programs that encourage and improve coordination among
Federal departments and agencies and States, and between
States, in the prevention and prosecution of such violations;
(3) identify existing and potential international policies
and programs that encourage and improve coordination between
countries in the prevention and prosecution of such
violations; and
(4) consider--
(A) the benefit and potential sources of additional
resources for the Federal prevention and prosecution of
criminal violations of that section;
(B) whether to establish memoranda of understanding
regarding the prevention and prosecution of such violations
between--
(i) the States;
(ii) the States and the Federal Government; and
(iii) the Federal Government and a foreign government;
(C) whether to establish a process to allow States to
request Federal subpoenas from the Federal Communications
Commission;
(D) whether extending civil enforcement authority to the
States would assist in the successful prevention and
prosecution of such violations;
(E) whether increased forfeiture and imprisonment penalties
are appropriate, such as extending imprisonment for such a
violation to a term longer than 2 years;
(F) whether regulation of any entity that enters into a
business arrangement with a common carrier regulated under
title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et
seq.) for the specific purpose of carrying, routing, or
transmitting a call that constitutes such a violation would
assist in the successful prevention and prosecution of such
violations; and
(G) the extent to which, if any, Department of Justice
policies to pursue the prosecution of violations causing
economic harm, physical danger, or erosion of an inhabitant's
peace of mind and sense of security inhibits the prevention
or prosecution of such violations.
(c) Members.--The interagency working group shall be
composed of such representatives of Federal departments and
agencies as the Attorney General considers appropriate, such
as--
(1) the Department of Commerce;
(2) the Department of State;
(3) the Department of Homeland Security;
(4) the Federal Communications Commission;
(5) the Federal Trade Commission; and
(6) the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
(d) Non-Federal Stakeholders.--In carrying out the study
under subsection (a), the interagency working group shall
consult with such non-Federal stakeholders as the Attorney
General determines have the relevant expertise, including the
National Association of Attorneys General.
(e) Report to Congress.--Not later than 270 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the interagency working group
shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and
Commerce of the House of Representatives a report on the
findings of the study under subsection (a), including--
(1) any recommendations regarding the prevention and
prosecution of such violations; and
(2) a description of what progress, if any, relevant
Federal departments and agencies have made in implementing
the recommendations under paragraph (1).
SEC. 6. ACCESS TO NUMBER RESOURCES.
(a) In General.--
(1) Examination of fcc policies.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal
Communications Commission shall commence a proceeding to
determine whether Federal Communications Commission policies
regarding access to number resources, including number
resources for toll free and non-toll free telephone numbers,
could be modified, including by establishing registration and
compliance obligations, to help reduce access to numbers by
potential perpetrators of violations of section 227(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 227(b)).
(2) Regulations.--If the Federal Communications Commission
determines under paragraph (1) that modifying the policies
described in that paragraph could help achieve the goal
described in that paragraph, the Commission shall prescribe
regulations to implement those policy modifications.
(b) Authority.--Any person who knowingly, through an
employee, agent, officer, or otherwise, directly or
indirectly, by or through any means or device whatsoever, is
a party to obtaining number resources, including number
resources for toll free and non-toll free telephone numbers,
from a common carrier regulated under title II of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), in
violation of a regulation prescribed under subsection (a) of
this section, shall, notwithstanding section 503(b)(5) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 503(b)(5)), be subject
to a forfeiture penalty under section 503 of that Act. A
forfeiture penalty under this subsection shall be in addition
to any other penalty provided for by law.
______
By Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Crapo, Ms. Baldwin,
Mrs. Capito, Mr. Tester, Mr. Boozman, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Moran,
Mr. Jones, Mr. Hoeven, and Ms. Rosen):
S. 164. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to remove the
prohibition on eligibility for TRICARE Reserve Select of members of the
reserve components of the Armed Forces who are eligible to enroll in a
health benefits plan under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 164
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``TRICARE Reserve Improvement
Act''.
SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR TRICARE RESERVE
SELECT OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED
RESERVE.
Section 1076d(a) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(1) Except as provided
in paragraph (2), a member'' and inserting ``A member''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (2).
____________________