Conservative Senators Introduce White House Rescission Bill
WASHINGTON – Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Joni Ernst (R-IA), David Perdue (R-GA), John Kennedy (R-LA), Rand Paul (R-KY), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Ben Sasse (R-NE) introduced the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act Thursday, a bill that would formally rescind the $15 billion in unneeded spending identified by the White House on May 8, 2018.
“Yes, a $15 billion spending reduction is a drop in the bucket compared to a $15 trillion debt,” Sen. Lee said. “But we have to start cutting spending somewhere. Because if we don’t, if we continue to allow federal government spending to grow faster than the economy as a whole, at some point economic reality will force us to do so in a much more painful manner later.”
“Our country doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem,” Sen. Johnson said. “While these cuts won’t solve our debt problems – far from it – they are an important step in the right direction by eliminating unnecessary and excessive spending throughout the federal government.”
“This proposal will help end the deception where Congress over funds popular programs like CHIP only to shift the excess money to unrelated programs when the American people aren’t looking,” Sen. Toomey said. “It is a modest but important step in the direction of honest budgeting and protecting taxpayers.”
“Rescinding these dollars now ensures that Congress doesn’t use them as a budget gimmick later,” Sen. Ernst said. “This rescissions bill is a common-sense initiative to ensure that the federal government is a better and more effective steward of hard-working Americans’ money.”
“We are past the tipping point in this debt crisis,” said Sen. Perdue. “Today, most of the money we spend on our military, our veterans, and domestic discretionary programs is borrowed money. This will get worse and it’s time for Washington to come to grips with this reality. President Trump has—that’s why his team is proposing to cut these unused and expired government programs. These are simple cuts, arguably the easiest we could make, and they should be supported by every member in Congress.”
“Unfortunately, the Senate was unable to cut one penny from every dollar through a budget bill I proposed last week. I am hopeful they will support cutting half a penny from every dollar through this rescissions package,” Sen. Paul said.
The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act 1974 empowers the president to send a rescission message to Congress specifying the accounts, programs, and amounts to be rescinded. The funds are then locked down for 45 days allowing Congress to either approve, modify, or ignore the president’s rescission request.
According to Senate rules, all rescission legislation must go to committee where the committee then has 25 days to act before the legislation can be discharged to the floor. By introducing this legislation today, that 25-day window for discharge will run out before the 45-day window for congressional action.
An online version of this release can be found here.
Communications Director (Lee)
Conn Carroll
(202) 224-5444
Communications Director (Johnson)
Ben Voelkel
Ben_Voelkel@johnson.senate.gov
(202) 224-5323
Communications Director (Toomey)
Kasia Mulligan
Kasia_mulligan@toomey.senate.gov
(202) 224-4252
Press Secretary (Ernst)
Leigh Claffey
Leigh_Claffey@ernst.senate.gov
(202) 224-3254
Communications Director (Perdue)
Caroline Vanvick
Caroline_Vanvick@perdue.senate.gov
(202) 224-3521
Press Secretary (Kennedy)
Meredith Jones
Meredith_Jones@kennedy.senate.gov
(202) 224-4623
Communications Director (Paul)
Sergio Gor
(202) 224-4343
Communications Director (Flake)
Elizabeth Jones
Elizabeth_Jones@flake.senate.gov
(202) 224-4521
Communications Director (Sasse)
James Wegmann
James_Wegmann@sasse.senate.gov
(202) 224-4224
============================
May 25, 2018
"to elevate the condition of men--to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life." --Abraham Lincoln
Chairman's Note: Title X Rule
Last week, the Trump administration proposed new rules to finally bring federal policy back in line with federal law. This should not be controversial in a republic committed to the rule of law.
But this new policy touches the question of abortion, which tempts all three branches of our federal government to turn truth, justice, and the law inside.
President Trump is resisting those temptations and affirming that the law should do what it says.
The particular law in question is the Public Health Service Act. Every year, it allocates hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to public health centers across the country.
Under the 1970 statute, no Public Health Service dollars “shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.”
That is, the bill was explicitly written to fund health care for lower-income communities - including family planning services - but not to fund or facilitate abortion.
Yet in the 1980s, the General Accounting Office found that abortion providers were co-locating their non-abortion and abortion-providing services, and just keeping two sets of books.
In response, regulations correcting this obvious abuse of the law were implemented, and upheld by the Supreme Court.
But then subsequent Democratic presidents rescinded these regulations, leaving the abortion industry free to indulge its ever-growing appetite for Americans’ blood and treasure.
This is the unacceptable status quo that the Trump Administration would correct.
By reinstating some of those prior regulations, President Trump is following through on his campaign promise to get taxpayer money out of the abortion industry.
This is to his great credit. Wherever you stand on the question of legalized killing of unborn children, it is essential that we draw the line at taxpayer funding of it.
The new rule would indeed reduce the flow of federal dollars to abortion providers, including the billion-dollar behemoth of the grisly industry, Planned Parenthood.
And even a modest step in this direction – in this case, about 15 percent - is to be commended.
In addition to incremental reform, this new rule is also a clarifying test.
After all, it does not deny Planned Parenthood or any co-located clinics anything. It simply offers them a choice.
If, despite their billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies and private donations, Planned Parenthood can’t afford two local facilities – one for abortion and one for non-abortion care and counseling – they will just have to choose which clinic to keep open.
They will have to decide - or perhaps, just publicly admit - what business they are really in: health care or abortion - life or death.
Of course, we already know the answer. As the New York Times recently put it, abortion is to Planned Parenthood what the internet is to Facebook.
That’s why Planned Parenthood is widely expected to lead a lawsuit to block the regulation as soon as it is implemented.
Our abortion-on-demand legal regime today is doubly unjust. First, because it was created by judges rather than elected lawmakers, and second, because it denies the undeniable humanity of the unborn.
President Trump’s new policy would improve the law on both counts. It would bring the administration of the law back into line with Congress’s clear, statutory text, and it would signal that in this White House, the protection of innocent human life will be the guiding principle it should be in civilized society.
Issue in Focus: Protecting Sovereignty for the People of Guatemala
As Americans, we love our liberty. We love the fact that no one from outside our country can tell us what to do or how to do it. Unfortunately other countries are not as lucky.
Guatemala, for example, has recently come under assault from international entities seeking to co opt the Guatemalan criminal justice system.
It all started with the best of intentions. The United Nations (U.N.) and the Government of Guatemala entered into an agreement for the creation of an International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG as it is known by its Spanish acronym). Ratified by the Congress of the Republic of Guatemala on August 1, 2007, CICIG was created as an independent international body whose purpose was to support the public ministry, the national police, civil, and other state institutions both in the investigation of crimes committed by members of illegal security forces and clandestine security apparatuses. All activities were intended to strengthen Guatemala’s criminal justice system.
After more than ten years of operation, however, CICIG has gone far beyond this mandate. CICIG repeatedly persecutes individuals for political ends, bringing inflated sentences for the most minor crimes. Their methodology is shaky, at times lacking proper documentation or evidence to bring forth cases. The group has become known for politicizing the justice system in Guatemala, not fixing it. And this has become such a problem that U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley, beseeched CICIG to not “be in the paper every day” on her visit earlier this year.
Consider the Bitkov family who fled persecution in Russia and became the unfortunate victims of a criminal group in Guatemala that was selling false identity documents. What once begun as a domestic case involving Guatemalan officials allegedly assisting in the forgery of passports and immigration documents was hijacked by the CICIG who tried the family alongside the criminals who sold them the documents and were convicted by CICIG judges.
Suspecting Russian influence on the CICIG, the United States government brought the case before the Helsinki Commission - the U.S. Government contingent of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) - who held a hearing on the matter on April 27.
The people of Guatemala have a fragile democracy. But it is one that they themselves deserve to facilitate – not U.N. outsiders. We should be supporting President Morales at a critical time when the leaders of Venezuela and Cuba seek to destabilize the region and his nation.
The U.S. can be that stabilizing entity, but not by giving the $44.5 million in funds that the State Department has sent to CICIG since its inception.
We ought to work to support the actual Guatemalan systems of governance, and prioritize cooperation on issues of trade, migration, and trafficking.
This is why I joined my colleagues in signing a letter to the chairmen of the Appropriations and Foreign Relations Committees on May 4, asking that they call on the State Department to withhold the $6 million of FY17 funds bound for CICIG.
As of now, I am grateful the request has been placed and is being upheld. The United States should be encouraging sovereignty for out neighbors, not undermining it by finding international shadow governments. The people of each nation have the ability to govern and know what is best for them.
=============================
Sen. Lee Statement on Release of Joshua Holt
SALT LAKE CITY - Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) released the following statement today regarding the release of Utahn Joshua Holt:
“I am very excited that after almost two years in prison, Utahn Joshua Holt has been released and will be reunited with his family today,” Sen. Mike Lee said. “We have long fought and prayed for his release from the Venezuelan government and are thrilled for his family.”
An online version of this release can be found here.
================================
