[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 28 (Thursday, February 16, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H1268-H1278]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF FINAL RULE BY SECRETARY OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 123, I call up
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 43) providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the
final rule submitted by Secretary of Health and Human Services relating
to compliance with title X requirements by project recipients in
selecting subrecipients, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 123, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 43
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services relating to compliance with title X
requirements by project recipients in selecting subrecipients
(81 Fed. Reg. 91852; December 19, 2016), and such rule shall
have no force or effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black)
and the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
General Leave
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on H.J. Res. 43, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
{time} 1345
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my resolution of
disapproval, H.J. Res. 43, which uses the authority of the
Congressional Review Act to overturn the Obama administration's 11th-
hour rule forcing States like Tennessee to fund abortion providers.
I want to begin today by stipulating very clearly what this
resolution is about because, while I am unapologetically pro-life, you
don't have to be in order to support this resolution. You just have to
believe in the Tenth Amendment.
Despite the histrionics you may hear on the other side of the aisle
today, with today's resolution, we are not, we are not, one, voting to
defund Planned Parenthood in any way, shape, or form; we are not voting
to cut title X funding; and we are not voting to restrict abortion
rights.
Madam Speaker, we are simply voting today to affirm the rights of
States to fund the healthcare providers that best suit their needs,
without fear of reprisal from their own Federal Government.
I didn't realize this was a partisan issue. It shouldn't be, because
that is how the title X grant program functioned for more than 45
years, until the Obama administration decided to leave this parting
gift to abortion industry on its way out the door.
For me, this is a personal issue. As a registered nurse, I know that
vulnerable women seeking true comprehensive care deserve better than
abortion-centric facilities like Planned Parenthood. So, as a State
legislator, I worked within my authority to make sure that Tennessee
honored the will of
[[Page H1269]]
our pro-life populace and steered our State's share of title X dollars
away from healthcare providers that performed abortion.
As a result, our share of title X grants have been sent exclusively
to the Tennessee Department of Health, which then allocates them to the
county health departments and other qualified providers that protect
the lives of the most vulnerable. That was Tennessee's right, and it
has been able to exercise that right while protecting access to
comprehensive care for those who are most in need.
As a matter of fact, according to HHS' own 2015 title X Family
Planning Annual Report, our State provided care under title X to more
than 75,000 Tennesseeans. That means that we served even more citizens
than the more populated States like Michigan and Virginia.
But in December of last year, the Obama administration decided to
intervene, setting unprecedented new parameters on how States must
select title X grantees that were specifically designed to prop up its
political allies in the abortion industry.
With my resolution, I am proposing that we go back just a few short
weeks prior to December 15, 2016, the day before the Obama
administration decided to reconfigure this 45-year-old program with its
ill-conceived order. That is all my resolution does is to take us back
45 years to the way the program has operated.
I urge my colleagues to give States the freedom and the flexibility
to take care of their citizens the best way that they know how by
voting ``yes'' on this H.J. Res. 43.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Madam Speaker, we are not even a full month into the new Presidency.
Yet, the President and the Republicans in Congress have already
launched numerous attacks on women's health and access to care. Here's
just a few of the examples aside from today.
They are charging ahead to dismantle the Affordable Care Act without
making any promises to preserve the vital protections for women that
are in that bill.
They imposed and dramatically expanded the global gag rule, which
harms women's access to health care around the world.
And just after the historic Women's March, House Republicans passed
H.R. 7, an extreme bill that effectively bans private insurance
companies from covering comprehensive healthcare services.
But here we are again today, with another bill that threatens access
to family planning care for millions of our most vulnerable citizens by
attacking title X. Title X is the only Federal program dedicated solely
to family planning, which includes a range of services that help women
and their partners prepare for pregnancy and ensure healthy spacing
between births.
Title X helps 4 million people who are uninsured. Title X centers
also play an important role in reducing unintended pregnancy, and title
X centers are also major points of access in our safety net.
Six in 10 women who go to a title X center consider it their major
source of health care. What this rule that Republicans want to roll
back does is it simply reinforces longstanding requirements that say
that States cannot discriminate against providers for reasons that are
unrelated to their qualifications to perform family planning services
when distributing title X funding. In other words, if an organization
provides abortions with its own private money but it qualifies for
title X, it can still get that funding.
Now I keep hearing from my colleagues that this violates states'
rights, but that completely ignores how Federal programs work.
Virtually all Federal funding opportunities require a State to adhere
to certain standards to ensure policy goals are met, and that is
exactly what this rule did.
Republicans will also argue that community health centers can fill
all the gaps created and accessed by denying these centers title X
funding. This claim has been debunked on numerous occasions.
For example, in 21 percent of counties with a Planned Parenthood
center, Planned Parenthood is the only safety net provider in the area.
That is why the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated, if
Planned Parenthood were defunded, as many as 390,000 women would lose
access to care, and 650,000 women would have reduced access. That is
why repealing this rule is a serious problem.
Just this afternoon I read a quote, and here's what it said:
``Patients and doctors should be making the big decisions--not
government bureaucrats.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
Let me say that again. ``Patients and doctors should be making the
big decisions--not government bureaucrats.''
Who said this?
Margaret Sanger? No.
Cecile Richards? No.
Hillary Clinton? No.
The person who said this this afternoon is the Speaker of the House,
Paul Ryan. I couldn't agree with him any more when it comes to title X
family planning money. This should be made by patients and their
doctors, not by bureaucrats in Washington.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who has been a champion for life and been
fighting for life for a long time.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentlewoman for her
extraordinary leadership on the life issue.
Madam Speaker, subsidized by over $500 million taxpayer dollars each
year, Planned Parenthood dismembers or chemically poisons a baby to
death every 2 minutes, killing over 7 million innocent children since
1973.
Undercover videos in 2015 exposed, in numbing candor, several high-
level Planned Parenthood leaders nonchalantly talking about procuring
children's organs for a price. They describe altering gruesome
dismemberment procedures to preserve intact livers, hearts, and lungs
from freshly killed babies.
All of this begs the question, Madam Speaker, why are U.S. taxpayers
giving half a billion dollars each year to Planned Parenthood?
H.J. Res. 43 simply allows States to redirect funds away from
abortion clinics and does not reduce funding for title X by so much as
a penny. Those funds are just redirected to other health clinics that
provide women's health care and don't engage in abortion.
In mid-December, on his way out the door, former President Obama
finalized a rule that coerces States to fund Planned Parenthood with
their title X money.
Prior to the Obama rule, States had chosen, five of them, to award
title X funds to non-Planned Parenthood entities. These five States,
Tennessee, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Ohio, account for nearly $16
million in annual title X funding and serve over 279,000 individuals a
year. These five States redirected those funds to other health clinics.
But under the Obama rule, these State recipients are threatened with
losing all--I say again--all of their title X support if they do not
comply. This is the definition of coercion.
The Obama administration essentially told States: You must use your
family planning dollars to support abortionists, or we will take away
your family planning dollars.
I thank the gentlewoman for her courage, for her insight, and for
offering this rule for our consideration today.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member of the House Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J.
Res. 43. This resolution is simply another attack on women's health and
another attempt by Republicans to limit women's access to high-quality,
essential care.
For decades, title X family planning program has funded grants that
provide millions of Americans each year with access to a broad range of
preventive health services, including contraception care and cancer
screenings. Title X is a critical safety net for low-income women and
teens; and for many patients, this program is their only source of
health care.
[[Page H1270]]
But the Republicans want to limit access to these services and allow
States to discriminate against certain providers, all as part of their
ongoing ideological crusade against abortion.
I stress, this resolution would permit States to prohibit
reproductive healthcare providers from participating in the title X
program, and would allow States to block access to care if the provider
separately performs abortions or is affiliated with health centers that
do.
Now, we already have seen what happens when States take actions to
discriminate against providers in the title X program. Access goes
down, the unintended pregnancy rate goes up, and the spread of sexually
transmitted infections increases.
So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution
because Republicans should not be entitled to pick and choose providers
in the title X program and play politics with women's health.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Marshall), a freshman and a physician.
Mr. MARSHALL. Madam Speaker, this past December, our past President
finalized a rule requiring States to fund Planned Parenthood through
title X funding.
Today I rise as a cosponsor of and in support of this joint
resolution, H.J. Res. 43, which repeals this Obama rule and allows
States like mine, Kansas, to choose how to best allocate title X funds.
The Obama rule is yet another example of government overreach that
tries to force my State to fund Planned Parenthood.
Redirecting Federal funds away from abortion providers does not
reduce funds for other title X programs. Instead, this will allow even
more funding available for county health departments and other public
health clinics for family planning, sexually transmitted disease
testing, and lifestyle choices education.
While Planned Parenthood remains a political organization that spent
tens of thousands of dollars in the last election to oppose pro-life
candidates, let me stop and salute the nurses and social workers back
home at the Barton County Health Department where I worked for years,
and salute my fellow doctors, Dr. Perry Smith and Dr. Bill King, and
everyone's favorite nurse practitioner, Sheila Hein, who dedicated
themselves to helping women.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
=========================== NOTE ===========================
February 16, 2017, on page H1270, the following appeared: . . .
yield 1 minute to gentlewoman from
The online version has been corrected to read: . . . yield 1
minute to the gentlewoman from
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I hope the women of America are watching.
Let there be no doubt about the actions of congressional Republicans
and the Trump administration. They will oppose your right to make your
own health decision and limit access to your reproductive health care
at every available juncture.
Rather than work to create jobs, House Republicans are helping State
officials block women from getting contraception and other reproductive
health services.
Today's bill would particularly harm the neediest Americans, as it
could deny them the opportunity to visit the health provider of their
choice, which in many instances may be the only provider available
within hours of their home.
Sadly, this will be just one of the many assaults on women's rights
in the 115th Congress.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Messer), who is the chairman of our Republican Study
Committee.
Mr. MESSER. Madam Speaker, the Federal Government should not fund
abortions, and it should not force States to fund them either. That is
one reason this body recently voted to make the Hyde amendment
permanent and governmentwide.
The vast majority of Americans support this policy as a matter of
conscience and agree that tax dollars should not fund abortion
procedures. Today's bill is consistent with that principle.
But despite the rhetoric across the aisle, the bill permits, but does
not require, States to direct title X funds to health providers that do
not provide abortions.
Without this bill, States would be forced to fund the abortion
industry by Federal bureaucrats. This is an issue of states' rights as
well as one of conscience.
{time} 1400
I am proud to support this measure, stand up for States, and defend
life.
I want to thank my colleague, Diane Black, for her hard work and
leadership on getting this bill to the floor, and I urge my colleagues
to vote for its passage.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor).
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
Colorado for her leadership.
For almost 50 years, a law called title X has ensured that women
across America, no matter their station in life, can receive expert
advice on how and when to plan their families, on contraceptives, and
also receive breast and cervical cancer screenings.
It is smart public policy. It often allows women to complete their
education and to get a job to become financially independent. It is
cost effective for all of us because it saves public money on prenatal,
maternity, and newborn care, and it has worked to decrease teenage and
unintended pregnancies.
In Florida, in 2014 alone, over 160,000 were counseled through
nonprofit agencies and community health centers, and over 38,000
unintended pregnancies were prevented, which helped prevent about
18,000 unintended births. That resulted in hundreds of millions of
dollars in cost savings. Plus, it is difficult to put a price tag on
the ability of someone to become self-sufficient and get a good start
in life.
Title X is critical for many of my neighbors in Florida, and it
should be protected. So it is sad to see my Republican colleagues
target working families and young women to restrict access to
contraceptives, family planning, and other health services. If
Republicans are successful, it would only harm our communities, and in
doing so, you are targeting the folks who need the help the most.
These politically motivated attacks on women's health are a
distraction from the real issues. Across the country, women, parents,
moms, and dads need greater economic and personal security, not less.
That is what Congress should be focused on.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this harmful resolution.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Alabama (Mrs. Roby), who is my classmate.
Mrs. ROBY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 43. Congress
must use its authority to strike this rule and stop the Federal
Government from forcing States to funnel taxpayer money to abortion
providers.
This rule is wrong on process and it is wrong on policy. First of
all, States have every right to put in place reasonable guidelines for
how their Federal dollars are spent. For Washington to attempt to
coerce States in this way would be bad enough, but for unelected
bureaucrats in the Department of Health and Human Services to go around
Congress at the eleventh hour of the Obama administration is just
outrageous.
Madam Speaker, I think we all agree that low-income women should have
access to essential title X services, but why is it necessary for those
services to be funded at the Nation's largest provider of abortion? It
isn't, of course, but the abortion industry and its supporters want us
to believe that it is.
When it comes to funding, they like to pretend that abortion doesn't
exist and that Planned Parenthood is the only place where women can get
health care, but that is not true. The truth is that there are more
than 13,000 federally qualified and rural health centers that offer
low-cost health care to women. These centers outnumber Planned
Parenthood clinics 20 to 1; they just don't preform abortions.
Understanding this, some States have rightly enacted laws and
policies redirecting title X dollars away from abortion providers and
toward these noncontroversial clinics. If the true goal here were to
ensure women's health care, no one should have a problem with that. But
that wasn't the goal, and everybody knows it.
There is a reason people call this rule President Obama's parting
gift to Planned Parenthood. It was a blatant, transparent attempt to
preserve the
[[Page H1271]]
pipeline of funding to the Nation's largest abortion business. It was
wrong, and I urge my colleagues to vote to nullify it today.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Speier).
Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership.
Madam Speaker, it is very hard for me to listen to the conversation
on the other side of the aisle because it is a conversation they are
having with themselves, and it is a conversation we are having with
ourselves.
Let me be really clear. This is not about Planned Parenthood and
abortion because we already know that Planned Parenthood gets no
funding for abortions in this country, pure and simple. Planned
Parenthood gets funding through title X to provide services for breast
cancer screenings, cancer screenings, STDs, and contraception.
What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are willing to say
is: We just want to make sure Planned Parenthood doesn't get a dime.
Just squeeze every dime out of them that may be Federal dollars, even
though they provide a really important health service.
So I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I guess
what you are saying is, to the 80,000 women last year who were
diagnosed with cancer because they went to a Planned Parenthood
facility and of the 800,000 that were screened for cancer, you would
rather see them die.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), who is my fellow Ways and Means Committee
member.
Mrs. NOEM. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 43
which overturns an Obama-era regulation forcing States to administer
title X healthcare funding to abortion providers like Planned
Parenthood.
Time and again, this Congress has risen with bipartisan support to
oppose the taxpayer funding of abortions. Annual provisions, including
the Hyde amendment, have been passed repeatedly and have saved an
estimated 2 million innocent lives.
Today, we rise again to stop the taxpayer funding of abortion
providers. I want to be clear. Nothing we do today will take a penny
from women's health. Instead, we are empowering States to redirect
these funds to community health centers and hospitals that offer more
comprehensive coverage to women.
In 2014 alone, Planned Parenthood performed more than 300,000
abortions while failing to provide even the most basic services, like
prenatal care, at many of their facilities.
Hospitals and federally qualified health centers not only offer a
broader range of services, but also greater accessibility in many
cases. While there is only one Planned Parenthood center in South
Dakota, we have six federally qualified health centers that operate in
45 service sites and serve more than 54,000 individuals per year. These
care centers offer low-income families health services, but they don't
perform abortions. We can support women's health--and, specifically,
health care for low-income women--without supporting abortion
providers.
Simply put, H.J. Res. 43 does not restrict access or funding to
health care for low-income women. What it does do is help protect
taxpayers from funding abortion providers. It empowers the States to
direct healthcare funding to organizations that truly do support
women's health, and it makes strides toward protecting the most
vulnerable among us, the unborn.
I thank Chairman Black for her commitment to this issue, and I am
proud to stand beside her as a partner in this effort.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. DelBene).
Ms. DelBENE. Madam Speaker, another week, another attack on women's
health. Only 6 days ago, the Senate confirmed a Secretary of Health and
Human Services who opposes women's access to no-cost birth control--a
man who claimed that not one woman has struggled to afford
contraception. Now, House leaders are working to eradicate the number
of places where women can access birth control. It is unacceptable.
For more than 40 years, title X has been a bipartisan program that
helps vulnerable Americans get basic health care like cancer
screenings, HIV tests, and contraception. In 2014 alone, it prevented
over 900,000 unintended pregnancies. But if this resolution passes,
millions will find themselves without access to the essential care that
they need, especially those in rural and underserved communities.
I have said it before and I will say it again: Our constituents
deserve better. It is time to focus on the priorities that matter to
the American people.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), who is a fellow Ways and Means Committee
member and advocate for children.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Black.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 43. This
resolution will overturn an Obama administration rule that forces
States to direct Federal funds to abortion providers like Planned
Parenthood.
States receive Federal funding to support family planning services,
and they have the discretion to distribute these title X funds in the
way that best serves their communities. Many States have exercised
their discretion to direct title X funding to community health centers
and family health clinics that do not provide abortions and withhold
funding from abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.
It is just common sense that States know the needs of their people
and their communities better than Washington bureaucrats do. The States
should be able to decide how these Federal funds are distributed.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration disagreed, so they issued a
last-minute regulation in their final days in office that would force
States to distribute funding to abortion providers. Their rule would
take away States' abilities to direct title X funds to providers that
offer comprehensive care but do not participate in abortion. It would
force States to enable the flow of funds to Planned Parenthood and
others in the abortion industry. I think it is reprehensible.
Now Congress has the opportunity to right this wrong and undo the
massive overreach. We are taking action to defend taxpayers and defend
life by using the Congressional Review Act to overturn this rule.
Overturning this rule won't reduce funding for women's health care. In
fact, it will let States direct these funds in the way that is best for
their citizens. It will ensure States can support women's heath as well
as protect the unborn.
Madam Speaker, this resolution is essential to rolling back executive
overreach and standing up for the sanctity of life. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting H.J. Res. 43.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her
leadership.
This is not about States, and it is not about the Federal Government.
It's about women and the rights of women. H.J. Res. 43 could impact
nearly 4 million primarily low-income patients that receive family
planning services at title X sites, annually, across the United States.
Of those 4 million patients, approximately 69 percent had incomes at
or below the Federal poverty line, while 61 percent of those patients
claimed the title X clinic as their only regular source of health care.
About 60 percent of women who access care from family planning health
centers consider it their main source; 4 in 10, it is their only source
of care.
Approximately 1.5 million Planned Parenthood patients benefit from
the Nation's family planning program. Approximately 20 percent of these
patients identify as Hispanic and approximately 50 percent as African
Americans.
Every public dollar invested in Planned Parenthood, $7.09 is saved in
Medicaid-related costs. Planned Parenthood centers are roughly one-
third of the program's clients, although Planned Parenthood health
centers comprise 10 percent of the publicly supported safety and family
net.
This resolution for which we should vote ``no'' is going to take away
money from people who are in need, who need
[[Page H1272]]
health care. Where are the Republicans on women's rights?
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 43, a
congressional resolution rescinding a rule promulgated by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services providing important protections
to ensure that women, men, and young people can see trusted
reproductive health care providers, like Planned Parenthood, through
the Title X family planning program.
I oppose the disapproval resolution because it is nothing more than a
blatant attempt to persecute Planned Parenthood and make it easier for
the state politicians to take away people's health care, specifically,
the four million people who rely on Title X for birth control and other
care.
From birth control, to well-woman exams, to cancer screenings,
millions of Americans nationwide turn to Planned Parenthood and other
safety net reproductive health providers as their trusted source of
health care.
Many of these Americans, including low-income women, women of color,
and those living in rural areas, are uninsured and rely on important
public health programs for affordable health care, including Medicaid
and the Title X family planning program.
But their access to health care is under attack across the country
because in recent years because politicians in at least 14 states have
taken action to block access to care through Title X, willfully
ignoring the law, the recommendations of public health experts, and the
clear and present need in their communities.
In September 2016, HHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
titled ``Compliance With Title X Requirements by Project Recipients in
Selecting Subrecipients'' aiming to explicitly bar these types of
actions.
HHS opened the proposed regulation to public comment, which closed in
October 2016 and garnered widespread support, with 91% of the roughly
145,000 responses in favor of the rule.
Madam Speaker, Title X provides lifesaving, preventive care to
millions of people and is cost-effective.
Title X helps ensure more than four million persons of low-income
have health care in this country.
In fact, Title X is the only way that millions of low-income women or
uninsured women have access to birth control, cancer screenings, STI
tests, and other basic care.
Eighty-five percent of the people served by Planned Parenthood's
family planning program have incomes below 200 percent of the federal
poverty level, and 48 percent are uninsured.
In 2015 alone, Title X provided nearly 800,000 Pap tests, breast
exams to 1 million women, nearly 5 million tests for STIs, and 1
million HIV tests.
About 60 percent of women who access care from a family planning
health center consider it their main source of health care; for 4 in
10, it is their only source of care.
Approximately 1.5 million Planned Parenthood patients benefit from
the nation's family planning program, 78 percent of whom live with
incomes of 150 percent of the federal poverty level or less, the
equivalent of $35,775 a year for a family of four in 2014.
Approximately 20 percent of these patients identify as Hispanic; and
approximately 15 percent identify as African American.
For every public dollar invested in family planning, $7.09 is saved
in Medicaid-related costs; that is savings to both federal and state
governments and taxpayers.
Planned Parenthood health centers serve roughly one-third of the
program's clients, although Planned Parenthood health centers comprise
10 percent of publicly supported safety net family planning centers.
Planned Parenthood health centers are located in the communities
where access to care is most needed.
More than half of Planned Parenthood's health centers across the U.S.
are in rural and underserved communities with limited access to health
care.
Seventy-five percent of Planned Parenthood patients have incomes at
or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL).
The idea that other providers could absorb Planned Parenthood's
patients has been resoundingly dismissed by experts.
In fact, the American Public Health Association called the idea
``ludicrous.''
Planned Parenthood health centers are also considerably more likely
to offer Title X patients a broader range of contraceptive methods than
other providers.
In a study of Community Health Centers (CHCs), among CHCs that
reported an independent family planning clinic in their largest site's
community, 69 percent reported referring their patients to providers
specializing in reproductive health services, like Planned Parenthood
health centers, for family planning care.
H.J. Res. 43 is a blatant effort to embolden states to try to block
women from getting birth control and other preventive care at highly
qualified family providers.
By issuing this important protection, the Obama Administration made
sure that politicians cannot ignore the law and stand in the way of the
care that women need.
I urge all Members to vote No on H.J. Res. 43.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter and article in
opposition to this resolution.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
February 16, 2017, on page H1272, the following appeared: Madam
Speaker, I include a letter . . .
The online version has been corrected to read: Madam Speaker, I
include in the Record a letter . . .
========================= END NOTE =========================
February 14, 2017.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Senate Majority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles Schumer,
Senate Minority Leader,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Leader McConnell, Speaker Ryan, Leader Schumer and
Leader Pelosi: As organizations committed to improving access
to health care for all people, the undersigned groups write
to strongly oppose H.J. Res. 43 and S.J. Res. 13, legislation
to overturn the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) final rules updating the regulations governing the
Title X family planning program. This critical rule clarifies
and reinforces the longstanding requirement that health care
providers may not be excluded from the program for reasons
unrelated to their qualifications to perform Title X-funded
services.
The Title X family planning program is a vital source of
family planning and related preventive care for low-income,
uninsured, and young people across the country. Every year,
more than 4 million individuals, including LGBTQ people and
people living in rural and medically underserved areas,
access life-saving care such as birth control, cancer
screenings, and testing for sexually transmitted infections
(STIs) including HIV at Title X-funded health centers. Title
X cannot succeed unless states and other Title X grantees
include providers that are optimally qualified to furnish the
range of Title X-funded services according to national
standards of care. This task becomes all but impossible if
experienced, reputable reproductive health care providers are
arbitrarily barred from fair consideration.
An increasing number of states have nevertheless tried to
block trusted reproductive health care providers from
participating in Title X. To date, at least 14 states have
taken official action to target and exclude otherwise
eligible providers from the program. Other states have
threatened to follow suit. Mounting evidence shows that the
exclusion of reproductive health care providers from publicly
funded health programs harms health outcomes, widens
disparities, and erects new barriers to care. When the very
providers that are best suited to deliver Title X-funded
services are targeted for exclusion based on factors wholly
unrelated to the program's objectives, federal health care
resources are poorly and inefficiently distributed and care
is less likely to reach individuals in need.
Ideological exclusions of trusted, highly qualified
providers from federally supported health programs undermine
health care access and jeopardize the health of the patients
these programs serve. Title X patients deserve the
opportunity to obtain high-quality family planning care from
the providers that are best equipped to provide it. As such,
we strongly support HHS's rule reinforcing that grantees must
design their provider networks based on the ability to
provide care to Title X patients in an effective manner--not
based on the political preferences of state lawmakers.
We strongly urge you to oppose H.J. Res. 43 and S.J. Res.
13, legislation that will overturn this important rule and
embolden states to attempt to block women from getting birth
control and other preventive care at highly qualified family
providers.
Sincerely;
Advocates for Youth; AIDS Foundation of Chicago; AIDS
United; American Association of University Women (AAUW);
American Civil Liberties Union; American Medical Student
Association; American Society for Reproductive Medicine;
Anti-Defamation League; Asian & Pacific Islander American
Health Forum; Catholics for Choice; Center for Reproductive
Rights; Feminist Majority Foundation; Hadassah, The Women's
Zionist Organization of America, Inc.; Human Rights Campaign;
Human Rights Watch.
Ibis Reproductive Health; In Our Own Voice: National Black
Women's Reproductive Justice Agenda; Institute for Science
and Human Values; The Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights; Methodist Federation for Social Action; NARAL
Pro-Choice America; National Abortion Federation; National
Asian Pacific American Women's Forum; National Center For
Lesbian Rights; National Council of Jewish Women; National
Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association; National
Health Law Program; National Latina Institute for
Reproductive Health; National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund;
National Organization for Women; National Partnership for
Women & Families.
National Women's Health Network; National Women's Law
Center; People For the American Way; Physicians for
Reproductive Health; Planned Parenthood Federation of
America; Population Connection Action
[[Page H1273]]
Fund; Positive Women's Network--USA; Raising Women's Voices
for the Health Care We Need; Religious Institute; Sexuality
Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS); The
Black Women's Health Imperative; The United Methodist Church,
Church and Society; Unitarian Universalist Women's
Federation; United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness
Ministries; URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity;
Voices for Progress.
____
[From Mother Jones, Jan. 31, 2017]
Senate Republicans Take the First Step To Defund Planned Parenthood
(By Hannah Levintova)
Leticia Parra, a mother of five scraping by on income from
her husband's sporadic construction jobs, relied on the
Planned Parenthood clinic in San Carlos, an impoverished town
in South Texas, for breast cancer screenings, free birth
control pills and pap smears for cervical cancer.
But the clinic closed in October, along with more than a
dozen others in the state, after financing for women's health
was slashed by two-thirds by the Republican-controlled
Legislature.
The cuts, which left many low-income women with
inconvenient or costly options, grew out of the effort to
eliminate state support for Planned Parenthood. Although the
cuts also forced clinics that were not affiliated with the
agency to close--and none of them, even the ones run by
Planned Parenthood, performed abortions--supporters of the
cutbacks said they were motivated by the fight against
abortion.
In December, the Department of Health and Human Services
finalized a rule that would prohibit states from withholding
federal funds--including Title X family planning money--from
Planned Parenthood. On Monday afternoon, a Republican senator
introduced a bill that would reverse it, along with a second
bill that would prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving
any federal funding--including Medicaid.
The bills, from Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), would redirect
federal funds away from Planned Parenthood to other health
care providers. The Hyde Amendment already prohibits federal
funds from being used for most abortions, but this
legislation would bar low-income women who rely on Medicaid
and Title X funding for subsidized care from obtaining other
women's health care services at Planned Parenthood.
``With a pro-life president in the White House and pro-life
majorities in the House and Senate, we will continue to work
together this year to undo the damage done by the Obama
administration,'' wrote Ernst and Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.)
in an op-ed published in the Washington Examiner on Friday,
the day of the annual anti-abortion March for Life.
The text of one of the bills, S. 241, explains that other
entities, including ``state and county health departments,
community health centers, [and] hospitals,'' will be able to
fill women's health care needs, including contraception, STI
testing, and cervical and breast cancer screening. Many
health experts say other health providers would not be able
to absorb Planned Parenthood's patients. An analysis
conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, which publishes
research on reproductive health, found that in two-thirds of
the counties that have a Planned Parenthood center, these
centers serve at least half the women seeking publicly funded
contraceptive care. In one-fifth of those counties, Planned
Parenthood is the only provider offering subsidized
contraceptive care.
``If passed, these bills will cause a national health care
crisis, leaving millions with nowhere to go for basic care,''
said Dana Singiser, vice president of public policy and
government affairs for the Planned Parenthood Federation of
America, in a statement.
Texas offers an example of what women's health care looks
like when Planned Parenthood is excluded from public funding.
In 2011, the state stopped state funds from going to Planned
Parenthood, leading to numerous clinic closures. Other health
centers attempted to step in, but Medicaid contraception
claims declined by 35 percent, suggesting that fewer low-
income women were obtaining contraceptive care. There was
also an increase in childbirths among women receiving
Medicaid who'd previously received contraception from Planned
Parenthood clinics.
A bill to deny federal funds to Planned Parenthood passed
both chambers of Congress last year, but was vetoed by then-
President Barack Obama. Trump is likely to sign Ernst's
version of this bill should it cross his desk: Throughout his
campaign, Trump promised that defunding the women's health
care provider would be a priority for his administration.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Weber).
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise with my Republican
colleagues in support of H.J. Res. 43.
Under the Obama administration's last-minute rule change to title X
funding, States like Texas are prevented from establishing criteria
that would eliminate abortion providers from receiving title X grant
money.
States have the right and responsibility to choose the health
providers that best provide and serve the needs of their moms and their
babies. During my time in the Texas Legislature, we used the
Alternatives to Abortion program.
This program provides low-income pregnant women and their babies care
items during pregnancy, and it also provides preventing information. It
also funds the counseling referral and pregnancy information hotline
and the Texas Pregnancy Care Network. Additionally, this program
supports groups in maternity homes, provides referrals to community and
social service programs like child care, and offers classes on life
skills, budgeting, parenting--yes, parenting--stress management, and
GED preparation.
{time} 1415
Nationally, 13,000 federally qualified health centers and rural
health centers provide comprehensive healthcare services to low-income
moms and their babies.
In my district, the 14th Congressional District, over 30 clinics are
committed to our community, including moms and their babies. These
organizations do a terrific job of supporting women, and yes, their
babies, too.
We are not cutting funding. We are not cutting care. We are ensuring
that Federal health centers have the funds and the support they need to
give the women and the babies the care that they deserve.
I want to thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for her efforts to
stand up for women and their babies.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, let me thank Congresswoman DeGette for her
tireless leadership in fighting for women's health, for healthy
families in general, and for our children.
I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 43. It is no surprise that,
once again, congressional Republicans are trying to undermine women's
access to health care and basic family planning services.
This ideological crusade--and that is what it is--will hurt those who
need help the most, including low-income women, women of color, and
young women. It would also deny thousands of families from choosing
their provider of choice--and sometimes the only accessible provider--
under title X.
Not only is this resolution antiwoman, it is also counterproductive.
We know that for every dollar spent on title X family planning, we save
more than $7 on Medicaid-related costs. But my Republican colleagues
are so determined to take family planning options away from low-income
women that they are prepared to put ideological perspectives above
public health.
As a member of the Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee of
the Appropriations Committee, I, unfortunately, see these attacks on
women's health all too well. Last year, Republicans tried to completely
eliminate funding for title X.
So don't be fooled. This piece of legislation is not about Planned
Parenthood. It is about Members of Congress trying to control women's
bodies.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
Mr. ROTHFUS. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Black for her work
on this subject.
I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 43, a joint resolution to
stop an Obama administration rule that will force States to send
taxpayer dollars to abortion providers, including abortion giant
Planned Parenthood.
In addition to last year's shocking videos where we heard high-
ranking Planned Parenthood officials use jarring language such as doing
a less crunchy type of procedure to preserve body parts, we have
recently learned in Pennsylvania that Planned Parenthood was using
false advertising on its websites.
The Pennsylvania Family Institute recently found that each Planned
Parenthood affiliate in Pennsylvania does not provide prenatal
services, even though all 27 Planned Parenthood locations in
Pennsylvania had listed ``prenatal'' as a service on their website.
After these clinics were called and asked, Do you provide prenatal
services, not one had any such services to offer, but they did offer
terminations. Planned Parenthood has since removed
[[Page H1274]]
the word ``prenatal'' from their booking appointments website.
They should not be receiving one dime of Federal dollars when they
are actively attempting to deceive women to get them in the door.
Abortion is not health care. Subsidizing the destruction of human life
with Federal dollars in the name of family planning is simply
unconscionable.
I urge my colleagues to join me in defending the lives of the unborn
and support this important joint resolution.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Judy Chu).
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to H.J. Res. 43. This bill is another in a long line of
attacks on women's health, women's choices, and women's lives.
For 50 years, title X has been the only federally funded program
dedicated to providing comprehensive family planning services for low-
income patients. Thanks to title X, these women have gained access to
services like birth control, STD testing, cancer screenings,
counseling, and sex education.
For most of its history, title X has received broad, bipartisan
support from Congress. That is because it has helped millions of women
and families. But now, Republicans are using this longstanding program
to continue their attack on women's health.
Last year, Republicans eliminated title X funding from their budget
altogether. This bill is just the latest attempt to do the same thing
by putting family planning resources out of reach for poor women across
the country. We cannot let this happen. We cannot let healthy
pregnancies and healthy families become a luxury reserved only for the
wealthy. It must remain a right for all.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), chair of our Values Action Team.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my unwavering
support for the lives of the unborn, to stand in solidarity with the
States, and to urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.J. Res.
43.
This resolution does not cut a dime from family planning funding
available to States. It simply enables States to direct the funding
towards nonabortion ``whole women'' healthcare providers, such as rural
health clinics and federally qualified health centers.
It is important to remember that, for every Planned Parenthood
clinic, there are 20 federally qualified health centers. Each year,
these centers serve over 21 million American women. This is almost
eight times the impact of Planned Parenthood clinics.
We know that Federal law requires that federally qualified health
centers provide mammograms, prenatal services, and emergency medical
services, none of which are offered by Planned Parenthood clinics.
The States were wise to prioritize such quality health care for women
with title X funds. Prior to this new, heavy-handed, agenda-driven
policy, the States maintained the flexibility to determine grant
recipients. This last-minute Obama administration rule effectively
nullifies the policy of 13 States that want to prioritize women's
health over abortion.
This Obama-era rule could also impair funding for another 10 States
that have chosen comprehensive care over abortion-focused clinics like
Planned Parenthood. But it gets worse. Of the 13 States impacted by
this rule, five States--Tennessee, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and
Ohio--could lose almost $16 million in title X funding for failing to
abide by the rule. This regulation forces these States to forego their
title X funding for all of the women in their State.
Today's resolution resolves this encroachment on the States, rolls
back this last-minute rule, and restores flexibility to the States so
that women can receive the health care they deserve.
I would like to thank Chairman Black for her work on this resolution,
and I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.J. Res. 43.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, the war on women
is escalating and more dangerous with H.J. Res. 43.
Let's not beat around the bush. Let's call this joint resolution what
it really is. It is a backdoor attempt to restrict access to a woman's
constitutional right to an abortion.
We all know that Federal funding for abortion is already prohibited,
but this goes further--much further. It cuts off funding for
contraception, screenings, and treatment if a provider also offers
abortions paid for with private funds.
Providers either stop doing abortions or they lose the Federal funds
they need to keep their doors open to serve their communities. In other
words, the supporters of this resolution are willing to sacrifice
women's access to basic healthcare services in order to stamp out
abortion. It is cruel, it is wrong, and I would say it is
discriminatory. When is the last time this body was called upon to cut
off access to basic health care for men?
Vote ``no.''
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Thomas J. Rooney).
Mr. THOMAS J. ROONEY of Florida. Madam Speaker, as one of his final
acts in office, President Obama issued a rule requiring that States
give title X family planning fund grants to abortion providers like
Planned Parenthood.
States have always had the autonomy to distribute these grants to
providers that they choose. Obama took that freedom away from States by
requiring them to directly fund abortions under the false assertion
that this provides women with greater access to health care. That is
just not true.
What people seem to forget is that for every 1 Planned Parenthood
facility in the United States, there are 20 federally funded community
health centers that stand ready and eager to provide health services to
women and don't perform abortions.
States should be able to make their own healthcare decisions. By
passing this resolution, we return that power to the States.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Frankel), the chair of the Democratic Women's Working
Group.
Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, for women to thrive in the
economic and social opportunities of our Nation, we must have the
ability to control our own reproductive lives with full access to
healthcare choices.
Now, here we go again: another Republican bill aimed at taking us
back to the dark, dangerous days when women were prisoners of their own
bodies; back to 50 years ago when Katy, a nurse in Florida, had no
access to legal contraception or abortion. She was a mother of two,
recently divorced.
Pregnant and unable to responsibly raise another child, she made an
appointment on the phone with a nameless person who met her on a lonely
street corner in Miami. She blindfolded her, hid her under a rug in a
car, and took her to a garage where she had an abortion.
But Katy was one of the lucky ones. She survived. Not so fortunate
were the women who threw themselves down stairs or inserted chemicals
or coat hangers into their uteruses in order to terminate their
pregnancy.
Madam Speaker, we will not go back to those dark, dangerous days.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Banks), one of our freshman Members.
Mr. BANKS of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong
support for H.J. Res 43, which would overturn the previous
administration's title X family planning funding rule.
In December, the Obama administration finalized a misguided rule
which dictates that States must send title X family planning grant
money to abortion providers. Even more, this rule also threatens to
deprive noncompliant States, such as Representative Black's home State
of Tennessee, of all title X family planning funds.
This politically motivated requirement was made neither in the
interest of protecting life, nor in the interest of the States.
Under the rule, States that decline to send title X funds to abortion
clinics
[[Page H1275]]
would lose their title X funding completely. If States make the
decision they want to use their funding to affirm life, then they
should be allowed to do so. This rule blatantly steps all over states'
rights and goes out of its way to favor abortion providers at the same
time.
Let's ensure States continue to have the freedom and flexibility to
make the right decisions for themselves. That is exactly what I have
advocated for my entire career, both in the Statehouse in Indiana and
again here on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.
I express my strong support for the passage of H.J. Res. 43,
introduced by Representative Black.
{time} 1430
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on
each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 15 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from Tennessee has 8 minutes remaining.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Washington State (Ms. Jayapal).
Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
resolution. For many people, particularly women, title X funding
literally means the difference between receiving reproductive health
care or being forced to go without birth control, critical cancer
screenings, and other preventive care.
For the 4 in 10 women who access health care at title X-funded
providers, cutting this funding would mean cutting their access to
health care altogether. For people of color, rural communities, and
those who struggle to make ends meet, cutting title X funds will
certainly have a disproportionate impact.
Let's be very clear that these funds are not controversial, but the
Republican majority in Congress and anti-choice groups are doing their
best to create a false narrative in order to demonize this funding,
which has done nothing but improve the lives of millions of people.
Cutting this funding would actually increase the number of unwanted
pregnancies by nearly 1 million in just a year alone and would increase
abortions by 33 percent.
Women need title X so they can continue to make decisions with their
doctors. It is 2017, and a woman's uterus is not a political football.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I must, once again, talk about what this
resolution really does. This resolution empowers States. It empowers
States that are able to choose to invest in women's health care over
abortion by sending those title X dollars to clinics that do not
destroy innocent life. My colleagues on the other side talked about how
this is destructive to women's health. I want to just mention that the
true destruction to women's health is abortion. That is the little girl
who is aborted that will never know about being a woman.
This bill does nothing to prohibit States from deciding where to best
use their dollars, but in States such as mine in Tennessee for the last
6 years, who have made that decision to send their dollars to
facilities that they believe give the best women's health care,
comprehensive health care, to over 75,000 women in our State, more than
many States that surround us that have larger populations.
If this were prohibiting women from getting services, we wouldn't be
so successful with providing services to more than 75,000 women in our
State. We haven't seen a decrease in services. We have seen an increase
in services. If you were to ask these women what they thought about
services that they are getting in these other facilities such as
Department of Health and federally qualified health centers, you would
see they are very satisfied because they get comprehensive services
that go beyond what places like Planned Parenthood can even provide for
them. They do mammograms, they do procedures if there are cancer cells
found in a woman's cervix.
So this whole ruse that this is a war on women and that we are taking
away women's right to healthcare services is a ruse. All this does is
to say, if a State like Tennessee decides this is the best place to
give the best quality of care for a woman, and hopefully their babies
and their children--which, if you go to these clinics, you will see
them all running around, they have life--it just gives them the choice
to do that.
Don't take away that choice from my State. Don't punish my State
because we do what we believe is the best thing for women's health.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Bera).
Mr. BERA. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her leadership on
this subject.
I am a doctor, and I have worked in low-income and free clinics, and
I know title X funding works. It has impact. Here is how we also know
it works: by expanding access to full reproductive services under the
Affordable Care Act and contraception, we have seen a dramatic
reduction in the number of unintended pregnancies.
We are debating the wrong thing here. We should be increasing title X
funds right now. We should be debating how we make access to full
reproductive services more readily available. That is what the women of
America want.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this dangerous bill. I urge my
colleagues to understand the women of America are watching.
I also urge, if somehow this makes it to the President's desk: The
mothers and daughters, Mr. President, are watching; so be careful here.
This is about preserving access to care and full reproductive rights.
We are watching.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Maine (Ms. Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Speaker, title X family planning services are an
essential lifeline for Mainers who need access to high-quality
preventive and reproductive care, from cancer screenings to STI
testings, to birth control. The resolution we are debating today
threatens access to these critical services.
Every year, Maine's network of title X providers serves more than
22,000 individuals in nearly every county, including some of the most
rural and underserved communities in our State. Sixty-five percent of
last year's patients had outcomes that qualified them for free or
reduced-cost services.
Family planning health centers often end up being their patients'
primary source of health care. Providers are trusted members of the
community. The care they deliver is high quality, and often they are
the only affordable local option. Without title X funds, thousands of
women and men throughout Maine would struggle to access and afford
alternative primary care.
At a time when Republicans want to repeal the Affordable Care Act
without a replacement plan, it is more important than ever to preserve
title X as a cornerstone of our safety-net healthcare system.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for her incredible
leadership on this issue.
Rather than working across the aisle with Democrats to grow our
economy, to rebuild older communities, to create new jobs, Republicans
are, again, focused on attacking women's health, undermining healthcare
programs that provide preventive care for over 4 million Americans,
many low-income women who would otherwise be uninsured.
Eliminating this rule makes it harder for women and families to have
access to lifesaving cancer screenings, for example, birth control, and
other vital health services. These funds are providing necessary health
services, Madam Speaker, and everyone in this debate knows what this is
about. These dollars do not support abortion. We know Federal law
prohibits these dollars from being used for that purpose, but to hear
our friends on the other side, they would imply that is the case.
Now, there is and should be a legitimate debate on that subject, but
it has been the law and it continues to be the law that these dollars
are not used for abortion services. This is about health care. This is
about lifesaving health
[[Page H1276]]
care for women, and it ought to be preserved.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to
H.J. Res. 43, yet another partisan attack against women's health care.
For more than four decades, title X has helped some of the most
underserved women in our country get access to family planning services
that otherwise would not have been received.
Once again, some of my colleagues believe that they have the right to
impose their beliefs on a nonpartisan issue. Instead of allowing women
to choose family planning services that are right for them, this
Chamber is voting to take that choice away. Instead of attacking
legitimate title X qualified providers who serve women across our
country, our Chamber should be working to ensure that all Americans
have the right to quality health care.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stop this attack on women's
health care. I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the other
side is reserving its time to close. Is that correct?
Mrs. BLACK. That is correct.
Ms. DeGETTE. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts
(Ms. Clark).
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman
from Colorado for all her leadership.
We are barely 6 weeks into this new Congress and the Republicans are
back at it again, attacking comprehensive health care for American
women. The regulation under attack says that in order to be awarded
title X funding, you must be able to deliver the services. Those
services are family planning and related preventative health services.
The majority is correct, we are not talking about abortion because
abortion is not funded by title X.
Why would Republicans oppose this regulation?
Because it allows them a backdoor way to make funding decisions based
on ideology, not quality of care.
Don't we want the best health outcomes for the over 4 million
patients who benefited last year from HIV tests, breast exams, and
contraception coverage under title X?
Title X-funded healthcare providers around this country are high-
quality professionals who provide needed care for millions of families,
many of whom are underserved. I oppose this resolution.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Engel), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, this is not a women's issue or a men's
issue. It is an issue for what is right. People have a right to make
health choices. If someone doesn't believe in abortion, then make that
choice for yourself. If someone believes in something else, then they
have the right to make that choice. So eligibility for title X funding
should be based on a provider's ability to provide family planning
services, period. Whether a provider offers safe and legal abortions
with private funds should not be used to prevent women and men from
getting preventive care like cancer screenings or HIV tests. That is
all the rule requires.
It should not be controversial. Yet, here we are.
What effect would this Congressional Review Act have?
Well, Kansas has given us an ominous preview. When Kansas defunded
providers that offered abortion services, the number of Kansans
accessing cancer screenings, STI tests, and other care through the
title X program plummeted by thousands. A vote for this CRA is a vote
to multiply that number.
The Americans who will be affected by this CRA will lose the
opportunity to see the provider of their choice, sometimes the only
viable provider.
Why would we want to put women--why would we want to put anybody in
that category, where they cannot see the only viable provider because
someone else doesn't like what the doctor can do?
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' My Republican friends always
talk about individual freedom and how important it is. This is an
individual freedom of a woman's right to control her own body and to
make personal choices on health care. We should not interfere with
that. We should allow the most and the best health care to be available
to all people. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, Republicans are continuing their crusade
to cut off access to comprehensive family planning services. Last year
they tried to zero out title X in their budget. This year they intend
to repeal ACA's cost-free contraception coverage for women with private
insurance. Today Republicans are attempting to stop the flow of title X
grants to health centers around the country.
Title X grants ensure that low-income families have access to birth
control and can plan their pregnancies so that moms and kids stay
healthy. Research has shown that without these vital services, the
unintended pregnancy rate would be 33 percent higher and the number of
abortions would also be higher. My anti-choice Republican colleagues
should cheer this program, but instead not only are Republicans trying
to defund Planned Parenthood so they won't be able to provide
contraception help, but now we are hypocritically rolling back a rule
that allows title X funds to flow to reproductive health centers, which
are the most effective providers of title X services and which we were
told would provide the contraception and other health services that
Planned Parenthood no longer would be able to.
{time} 1445
Women are watching us today. They know that this joint resolution is
nothing more than another attempt to stop low-income women from
accessing the health care they need and to allow the government to once
again step between women and their doctors.
It is no secret I support a woman's constitutional right to access
abortion; but even if you don't and are committed to reducing abortion
in this country, you should step up to the plate and support
comprehensive and robust family planning for all women. This joint
resolution should do the opposite. We should all support contraception
for the women of this country.
I urge my colleagues to reject this joint resolution.
Ms. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, well, here we are again, considering
legislation that would harm women and families.
Let's be clear: House Republicans do not support family planning
title X. For years, Republicans have tried to completely eliminate
funding for title X through the appropriations process. So think about
that. We are debating contraception in 2017--astonishing.
Title X provides millions of low- and middle-income men and women
with access to reproductive healthcare services. The joint resolution
we are voting on today would allow States to discriminate against title
X providers who perform abortion with non-Federal funds by removing
them from the program, leaving patients with few options for the care
they need.
Again, let's be clear. If you want to reduce the number of abortions,
you need to ensure everyone has access to family planning. Teen
pregnancy and the rate of abortion are at historic lows because we have
worked to make contraception more affordable and accessible.
For over 60 percent of title X patients, the clinics they visit for
family planning services are their only regular source of care, and yet
we are considering legislation that would result in clinic closures and
would prevent men and women from seeing trusted providers in their own
communities.
Do Republicans oppose cancer screening for cervical breast cancer? Do
they oppose STI testing? Do they oppose contraception? The answer seems
to be yes because Republicans continue to
[[Page H1277]]
ignore these facts in their effort to harm women's health.
I urge my colleagues to put an end to the war on women and to oppose
this very dangerous legislation.
Ms. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Madam Speaker, we hear today this really isn't about denying women
and families access to family planning and birth control because States
would just simply take that title X money and put it somewhere else.
Unfortunately, this seems to be a bit of magical thinking. Even the
Congressional Budget Office said that as many as 390,000 women would
lose access to care and 650,000 women would have reduced access if
legislation like this passed.
The fact of the matter is you can't simply shift all of these people
from title X family planning centers like Planned Parenthood to
community health centers, as the other side asserts. For one thing, 69
percent of the community health centers actually refer patients to
family planning providers like Planned Parenthood, and only 19 percent
of community health centers report that their largest sites both
prescribe and dispense all types of contraceptive methods. Only half of
community health centers that received title X funding provide IUDs and
other types of long-acting birth control, the most effective type of
birth control, so you can't just shift everybody else someplace else.
In fact, the National Association of Community Health Centers itself
said that they could not treat all of the patients that Planned
Parenthood now has if this legislation went through. Let's just call
this joint resolution what it is. It is an attempt to take away
important family planning resources from the women and families of
America.
Now, I think if we all support title X when the annual appropriations
bill comes up this year, I would ask my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle to please join me and my colleagues in an effort to increase
title X funding. In all the years I have been in Congress, I have seen
attempt after attempt not only to reduce abortion availability, but
also to stop family planning services. I think that is something we
could agree with on, and I think we could do that.
So in the meantime, let's make sure that the women of America can get
access to the family planning they need, and let's continue to give
family planning money to all of these interests to do that.
Again, I would like to reiterate, we have no family funding for
abortions. That is the law. I don't like the law, but that is the law.
We are talking about family planning and title X. That needs to be
preserved and enhanced. Vote ``no'' on this joint resolution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I include in the Record letters from March for Life Action, Christian
Medical and Dental Associations, and United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops.
March for Life Action,
Washington, DC, February 15, 2017.
Representative,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of March for Life Action and
the hundreds of thousands of our supporters and fellow
marchers, I urge you to vote in favor of H.J. Res. 43.,
sponsored by Rep. Diane Black (R-TN). When H.J. Res. 43 comes
to the House floor for a vote we will be scoring the vote in
our annual scorecard for the First Session of the 115th
Congress.
In the waning days of his Administration President Barack
Obama, using his power at Health and Human Services, issued a
rule that locked down federal grants for abortion-giant
Planned Parenthood but also usurped state's rights by
blocking states seeking to defund the abortion industry and
redirect funds to county health departments, community health
centers and other clinics that put women's health above an
abortion agenda.
H.J. Res. 43 does not reduce funds for family planning, but
allows states to assure that taxpayer funds do not support or
underwrite abortion providers when so many Americans have
ethical reservations about this procedure. The time has come
for a clean break between government support of family
planning activities and abortion.
Again, on behalf of March for Life Action, I strongly
encourage your vote for H.J. Res. 43. March for Life Action
will score this vote in our annual scorecard.
Sincerely,
Thomas McClusky,
Vice President of Government Affairs.
____
Christian Medical &
Dental Associations,
Bristol, TN, January 16, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell: Thank you
for your strong, principled and common-sense leadership on
the issue of preventing American tax dollars from funding
abortion on demand. Thank you also for your commitment to
providing healthcare access to the poor and other vulnerable
patients in need.
On behalf of the over 18,000 members of the Christian
Medical Association, we urge you to:
1. ensure the reallocation of funding currently used by
abortion-performing, partisan political organizations such as
Planned Parenthood, by directing that funding instead to the
over 13,000 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and
Rural Health Centers (RHCs); and,
2. overturn, through the Congressional Review Act, the US
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule finalized
December 19, 2016, titled ``Compliance with Title X
Requirements by Project Recipients in Selecting
Subrecipients,'' in order to ensure that states are allowed
to take a similar direction in allocating federal funding.
Many of our members serve in federally funded centers that
focus on providing care to patients regardless of who the
patient is or what the patient's values, orientation,
ethnicity or any other qualities may be. As you know well,
needy patients depend on these centers and on physicians like
our members to provide healthcare when likely no one else
would provide healthcare for them. FQHCs provide
comprehensive services and a ``medical home'' for whole
families and work in the areas of most critical need.
According to the independent government watchdog GAO in
2012, FQHCs served 21 million individuals and provided
services including STD testing, cancer screening and
contraceptive management, as well as other services including
immunizations and general child wellness exams. FQHCs and
RHCs often meet patient needs on modest budgets, and those
who serve in these centers often do so at great personal
financial sacrifice. Unlike Planned Parenthood, which follows
an aggressive business plan designed to maximize profits on
services such as abortion, these centers exist for the
purpose of serving the nation's most needy patients.
Yet some medical groups like the American Congress of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, whose pro-abortion ideology
aligns with Planned Parenthood and whose members profit
personally from working with Planned Parenthood, decry
``political interference in the patient-physician
relationship.'' This cry comes, oddly enough, while applying
pressure on politicians to fund political groups like Planned
Parenthood. It is also worth observing what sources such as
the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics and PolitiFact
National have confirmed--that Planned Parenthood spends
millions of dollars each year for one partisan purpose: to
elect Democrats and defeat Republicans.
It's hard to get more political than that, and it's
impossible to get more politically partisan than that.
The majority of Americans do not want their tax dollars to
subsidize abortion, and they certainly do not want their tax
dollars to subsidize an abortion-performing partisan
political machine. Because of the strong concern of American
taxpayers, existing federal law addresses direct funding of
abortion. However, the fungible nature of federal grants to
Planned Parenthood means that every American's tax dollars,
regardless of their convictions about abortion, are being
used to prop up the abortion industry.
Any organization that wishes to avoid political
entanglement can do so quite easily--by simply foregoing
government funding. Those who seek funding should expect
federal and/or state oversight, requirements and standards.
Even the most modest of standards should disqualify from
federal funding organizations such as Planned Parenthood,
given the recent findings of the Select Investigative Panel
on Infant Lives, the list of 15 criminal and regulatory
referrals made by the Panel, and the referral by the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary to the FBI and the Department of
Justice for investigation and potential prosecution.
If any organization can and should do without federal
funding, the billion-dollar, corrupt abortion business
Planned Parenthood is a prime example.
We respectfully urge you to reallocate American tax dollars
away from such profit-centered, divisive and partisan
organizations and provide funding instead to patient-
centered, non-controversial and nonpartisan Federally
Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and Rural Health Centers
(RHCs). And we urge you to ensure that states can do the
same, applying reasonable state standards and requirements to
those who seek to use taxpayer funds. Thank you very much for
your consideration of these views, and for your leadership on
this issue.
Sincerely,
David Stevens, MD, MA (Ethics) CEO.
[[Page H1278]]
____
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Secretariat
of Pro-Life Activities,
Washington, DC, February 14, 2017.
Dear Representative: I write on behalf of the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life
Activities to urge your support for H.J. Res 43. This
resolution of disapproval would nullify former President
Obama's final rule relating to compliance with Title X
requirements by project recipients. 81 Fed. Reg. 91852 (Dec.
19, 2016). The stated purpose of this rule change is to
prevent states from excluding providers such as Planned
Parenthood from sub-awards based on state criteria, such as a
requirement that sub-recipients provide comprehensive primary
and preventive care in addition to family planning services.
The Title X rule change is bad public policy and should be
nullified for several reasons. First, it is deeply troubling
to many Americans that Planned Parenthood, the nation's
largest abortion network (performing over a third of all
abortions), receives more than half a billion taxpayer
dollars per year. This concern has rightly grown with
revelations about Planned Parenthood's willingness to traffic
in fetal tissue from abortions, and to alter abortion methods
not for any reason related to women's health but to obtain
more ``intact'' organs. Additionally, a recent revelation
that the vast majority of Planned Parenthood facilities do
not provide prenatal services provides additional evidence of
its bias toward providing and promoting abortion.
Second, the Department of Health and Human Service's stated
objective in preventing states from ensuring the seamless
delivery of comprehensive care places the Department in a
self-contradictory position. Last year in the Nation's
highest court, HHS touted the seamless coverage of health
services as a virtue. Indeed, the Department argued that
seamlessness is a government interest of the highest order,
sufficient to outweigh constitutionally and statutorily
protected religious objections.
In this new rule, however, HHS takes the opposite position,
saying that the seamless provision of services is an ill to
be avoided. The present rule would ensure that the provision
of care is fragmented, rather than seamless, because it would
undermine state requirements that sub-recipients provide
primary and preventive care in addition to family planning.
Seamlessness cannot at one and the same time be a government
interest of the highest order when it disadvantages religious
organizations, but an affirmative ill to be avoided when it
disadvantages Planned Parenthood.
Third, states may have other reasonable and persuasive
grounds for disqualifying entities from sub-awards that go
beyond the ability of such entities to ``provide Title X
services'' as the rule states (81 Fed. Reg. at 91860). For
example, a sub-award applicant may have been involved in
fraudulent practices, or the applicant or its stakeholders
may even have committed a crime, bearing on the applicant's
fitness and suitability for a sub-award. Indeed, the
requirements for federal awards and sub-awards in general are
typically accompanied by all sorts of standards, many of
which are imposed by the federal government itself, and those
standards often have little or nothing to do with the ability
to provide services (governmental guidelines are replete with
such requirements). States may also have widely differing
standards for sub-awardees based on the states' own policy
judgment. Therefore, it should be permissible for states to
decline to make a sub-award when the sub-awardee does not
meet applicable criteria, whether federal or state, even if
the entity is, strictly speaking, able to ``provide Title X
services.'' Those criteria, of course, themselves remain
subject to applicable federal and state law.
For each of these reasons, we urge you to support H.J. Res.
43.
Sincerely,
Timothy Cardinal Dolan,
Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life Activities, United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, the 10th Amendment of the Constitution
reads pretty clearly to me: ``The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''
I understand that there is a diversity of views represented in this
Chamber on matters of health care and human life. I am not asking my
colleagues to set those views aside with this vote. I am simply asking
them not to substitute their judgment for the will of the States.
With this resolution, we are letting States care for their citizens
the best way they know, just as they have had that ability for the past
45 years, and we are maintaining access to care for women and families.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this resolution.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 43
which is another baseless and dangerous attack on women's health care
providers.
The title X Family Planning Rule, passed almost 50 years ago, already
requires states to base title X funding on a provider's ability to
provide title X services. This rule protects title X providers from
facing unwarranted discrimination and allows them to continue doing the
important work 4 million Americans rely on every year. Title X services
include family planning services, cancer screenings, birth control, STI
testing and basic care. To diminish these services will result in
women, men and young people with the greatest need being denied the
opportunity to have any health care.
Whether or not a provider provides safe and legal abortions with
private funds is irrelevant to their ability and capacity to provide
title X services. In fact, it is preventive services and family
planning offered through title X programs that help to lower the number
of unintended pregnancies. But attacks on these providers and the
services they offer in their communities persist.
This resolution rolls back protections that should already be
guaranteed, but repeated attacks on family planning providers have
resulted in the need for rules like the one this resolution dismantles.
That is why I strenuously oppose this resolution. It should be rejected
as an unjustified and unnecessary attack on title X programs and the
services they provide for millions of low income Americans.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, it's been less than two
months since the start of the 115th Congress and Republicans have
already taken every opportunity to roll back progress made for women.
They have pledged to tear down the Affordable Care Act and block
access to Planned Parenthood.
They passed a bill through the House that limits insurance coverage
for comprehensive reproductive healthcare.
Now they've turned their sights to title X, a family planning program
that is crucial for women's health.
There are serious consequences for scaling back title X: without the
contraceptive services provided at these title X sites, pregnancy rates
would be 30 percent higher among teens.
We in government should be making it easier for young people to make
smart and informed decisions, not depriving them of the ability to be
responsible about their health.
Please, Madam Speaker, think about those young women. Their lives and
their health should be a concern to all of us
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 123, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________