[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).

                          ____________________