[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 192 (Tuesday, December 3, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6799-S6800]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                Abortion

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, my hope is that each of us in this 
Chamber and their families enjoyed a wonderful Thanksgiving time, being 
grateful for all of the blessings that we in this country have.
  I know I certainly had a wonderful week. I had the opportunity to 
spend some time across the great State of Tennessee and to talk with 
Tennesseans about what was on their minds.
  I will tell you this. In my opinion and experience, as diverse as 
Tennesseans are, there is one thing in common that I heard repeatedly, 
and that is that they are through with trying to guess where 
politicians in Washington, DC, stand on issues. This is something I 
think all of us need to hear and probably don't want to hear, but our 
fellow Americans, and certainly Tennesseans, have no idea what their 
elected representatives believe. Instead, all they see up here is this 
endless cycle of political in-fighting and failed legislation. They 
consistently say: We want you to focus on things that are important to 
us. We want you to focus on things that are important to the country. I 
will tell you that it is no wonder that our country's discourse is 
plagued by what is a marked cynicism for even our most earnest efforts.
  As I thought about this during the week and the visits that I had 
across the State, I thought: You need look no further for an example of 
where they see this fighting as being unnecessary than an issue that 
has become a magnet for derision, and that is the issue of protecting 
life--more specifically, the use of taxpayer dollars to fund the 
abortion procedures.
  In poll after poll, after poll, a majority of Americans have 
indicated that they oppose public funding of abortion. The numbers on 
this are not even close.
  As early as this summer, self-identified Democrats' support for 
taxpayer-funded abortion struggled to even break out of single digits. 
The data is clear, and it is convincing. The American taxpayer does not 
want their tax dollar being used to fund abortion procedures.
  So how is it, then, that my friends in the minority insist upon 
loopholes and work-arounds that make taxpayers complicit in the 
slaughter of the unborn?
  Their cause has been frustrated, of course, by President Trump's 
aggressively pro-life agenda. Last year, he proposed the ``protect life 
rule,'' which cut taxpayer funding under the title X program for any 
facility that performs abortions or that refers their clients to those 
facilities that perform abortions.
  This rule closely mirrored my Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition 
Act. That was the first bill I filed when I came to the Senate. It is 
something that is very important to me.
  But this year, this body's liberal faction once again seized an 
opportunity to undercut the pro-life agenda via a legislative trick 
known around this Chamber and Capitol Hill as a poison pill. You see, 
they found a way to hold hostage millions of dollars attached to the 
fiscal year 2020 State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill. That 
was done via an amendment that funnels family planning dollars to 
domestic organizations that support abortions overseas.
  Do you see what they are doing?
  It is an amendment that funnels family planning dollars to domestic--
U.S.--organizations, but those organizations are supporting abortions 
overseas. It also uses Obama-era gender policies to define sex--a clear 
red herring to get people arguing about gender identity so they will 
ignore the Democratic Party's leftward swing on the issue of abortion.
  You could chalk all this up to politics, were it not for the 
existence of the bipartisan budget agreement that both parties agreed 
to ahead of our work on appropriations. That agreement included a ban 
on poison pill riders like the Shaheen amendment, as well as assurances 
that any poison pills would be swiftly removed. We thought we had taken 
care of that issue with the bipartisan budget agreement, but oh, no, 
here we go.
  Yet in order to ``empower women overseas'' Democrats have indicated 
that they are willing to throw away $847 million for maternal and child 
health, $100 million for global health security programs, $150 million 
for nutrition assistance, and $6.2 billion for global HIV and AIDS 
assistance. They are doing this, throwing all that money away, so they 
can make a political point.
  This is an interesting development coming from the party that once 
deployed their support for abortion in only the most extraordinary 
circumstances. The party of ``safe, legal, and rare''--their 
terminology--has become the party that hedges their bets with 
infanticide and prioritizes convenience over human life.
  Just across the river in Virginia, Ralph Northam and his cohorts were 
allowed to set a new reprehensible standard for what left-leaning 
America is willing to condone in the name of soulless politicking.
  Tennesseans told me they want to see their representatives speaking 
up. They want to see women speaking up on behalf of life, families, and 
the unborn. They see clearly that if protecting life is the hallmark of 
the conservative movement, then, destroying life is the hallmark of a 
more liberal approach. They want us to draw a line in the sand and 
declare once and for all that loopholes and legislative tricks will no 
longer be tolerated because, for them, abortion is not up for casual 
discussion. They see how clearly and how easily the left trifles with 
the lives of children, and they are repulsed by it. What they want us 
to do is to focus on getting things done that are important to them. 
And, yes, to Tennesseans, being able to say the right to life, liberty, 
and pursuit of happiness is something that has a deep meaning.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Komitee 
nomination?
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  (Mr. CRUZ assumed the Chair.)
  (Mr. CRAMER assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet), 
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from New York 
(Mrs. Gillibrand), the Senator from California (Ms. Harris), the 
Senator

[[Page S6800]]

from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), 
the Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren), and the Senator from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 86, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 369 Ex.]

                                YEAS--86

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--4

     Cantwell
     Heinrich
     Markey
     Murray

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bennet
     Booker
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Klobuchar
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Scott (SC)
     Warren
     Whitehouse
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________