[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 17, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H154-H164]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6914, PREGNANT STUDENTS' RIGHTS 
ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6918, SUPPORTING PREGNANT AND 
PARENTING WOMEN AND FAMILIES ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. 
RES. 957, DENOUNCING THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S OPEN-BORDERS POLICIES, 
  CONDEMNING THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY CRISIS ALONG THE 
        SOUTHWEST BORDER, AND URGING PRESIDENT BIDEN TO END HIS 
                 ADMINISTRATION'S OPEN-BORDERS POLICIES

  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 969 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 969

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6914) to 
     require institutions of higher education to disseminate 
     information on the rights of, and accommodations and 
     resources for, pregnant students,

[[Page H155]]

     and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce or 
     their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6918) to 
     prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from 
     restricting funding for pregnancy centers. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu 
     of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 118-20 shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the resolution (H.Res. 957) denouncing the Biden 
     administration's open-borders policies, condemning the 
     national security and public safety crisis along the 
     southwest border, and urging President Biden to end his 
     administration's open-borders policies. The resolution shall 
     be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to 
     adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of 
     the question except one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. 
Scanlon), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate the rule providing 
for consideration of H.R. 6914 and H.R. 6918, which provides 1 hour of 
debate equally divided and controlled by the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means, respectively, and 
provides each one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for 
consideration of H. Res. 957 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. Speaker, citizens across this country, and even Members on both 
sides of the aisle, have been imploring this administration to end its 
open-border policies, yet these cries have fallen on deaf ears. The 
President has failed to maintain operational control of this Nation's 
borders, causing the worst border crisis in American history.
  Of course, this crisis extends way beyond the border. Every community 
in the country is facing the consequences of this administration's 
failure, from the strain on schools to the horrifying fentanyl epidemic 
being worsened by the astonishing amount of narcotics coming across the 
border.
  In short, the policies of this administration have created a border 
crisis, a national security crisis, and a humanitarian crisis. It is so 
irresponsible and embarrassing that I almost understand why the Biden 
administration refuses to take responsibility for it.
  Be that as it may, the fact is the responsibility lies with Secretary 
Mayorkas; the appointed border czar, Vice President Harris; and 
President Joe Biden.
  H. Res. 957 condemns the national security and public safety crises 
these actors and other Biden administration officials have created, 
denounces the Biden administration's open-border policies, and urges 
the President to end said policies.
  We are also here to discuss two pieces of legislation to support 
expectant mothers. H.R. 6914, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act, 
requires institutions of higher education to provide information on the 
rights of and accommodation and resources for pregnant students. 
According to the CDC, nearly one-third of all abortions performed in 
America are for women aged 20 to 24, college-aged students. While most 
colleges are required to accommodate pregnant students under Title IX, 
many women are unaware of those requirements and the resources 
available to them and feel that they have to have an abortion or give 
up their educational goals.
  This bill simply requires these institutions to share information 
about resources and accommodations they already provide.
  H.R. 6918, the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families 
Act, a bill I introduced with Representative Tenney from New York and 
Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey, prohibits the Department of 
Health and Human Services from keeping TANF dollars from being used to 
support pregnancy centers. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
provides $16.5 billion annually to support assistance activities for 
needy families.
  Certainly, pregnancy centers, which provide a wide variety of 
resources to pregnant women, from treatments to diapers to counseling, 
qualify for this kind of funding. Unfortunately, the Biden 
administration has shown their antiwomen, pro-abortion hand again, 
proposing a rule to modify allowable uses of TANF that singles out 
pregnancy centers in a way that could prevent States from using these 
funds for these vital care centers.
  Make no mistake, conservatives are here for unborn babies and their 
mothers, and we want to ensure these moms are supported throughout 
their pregnancies and empowered to raise their families. These bills do 
just that.
  Each of these bills delivers on the commitment House Republicans have 
made to the American people. We are here to protect the rights of 
Americans; we are here to hold the government accountable; and we are 
here to secure this country and its borders, all of which this 
administration has failed to accomplish.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for 
yielding the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, here we are, a little more than 48 hours from a 
devastating government shutdown. The deadline to pass a Federal budget 
is already 3 months overdue, and the clock keeps ticking.
  Unable to get control of their majority and act responsibly, 
Republicans keep kicking the can down the road. They have struggled to 
pass any legislation because they choose again and again to appease an 
extremist minority rather than to advance policies supported by the 
majority of Americans and their Representatives here in the House.
  Moreover, now, as we face pressing challenges at home and around the 
world, they have brought us to the brink of disaster once more, all 
because they chose to renege on a bipartisan deal to fund the 
government.
  So, with these serious problems we are facing, what are House 
Republicans' priorities for today? They are to attack the President and 
pass more anti-abortion bills. It is a new year, but for House 
Republicans, it is the same old story.
  Distracted by their own chaos and infighting, they have repeatedly 
failed to deliver for the American people. They have wasted time and 
tax dollars on baseless investigations and divisive culture 
wars, dragging the American people with them down rabbit holes of 
conspiracies and untruths.

  They throw tantrums when they can't get their way, ousting their last 
Speaker and, just last week, bringing all work in the House to a halt 
because their new Speaker had dared to try to

[[Page H156]]

strike a deal to keep the government open.
  They put on dramatic acts of political theater, hoping to hide the 
fact that they are unable to complete the most basic tasks of 
governing. In 2023, they led the least productive session of Congress 
since the Great Depression.
  We think the American people deserve better.
  With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, let's look at the three bills that 
the House leadership has chosen to spend Congress' time on this week, 
and it is more of the same.
  The first bill in this rule is the grotesquely misleading H. Res. 
957, a resolution that repeats lies and distortions about the migration 
challenges at our southern border, starting with the title of the 
resolution and its false claim that this administration is promoting an 
open border. This is MAGA fiction, and it is an effort to keep 
campaigning on the fear of immigrants rather than any serious attempt 
to address the complex issues created by global migration forces and 
decades of congressional inaction.
  It has become obvious that our Republican colleagues don't really 
want to fix our broken immigration system. They just want to campaign 
on it.
  They have rejected--before even reading--the bipartisan solutions 
proposed by Senate Republicans, Democrats, and the administration.
  They have refused to consider supplemental border funding requests 
from the President because the truth is they don't want solutions. They 
want political stunts. They want to rant, complain, blame, and 
campaign.
  Immigration and border issues are complex. That is why they have 
remained on the table for so many years. They require comprehensive and 
nuanced policies, not acts of cruelty and dehumanization marked by 
barbed wire, family separation, or needless tragedies.
  As we have seen over and over again, our Republican colleagues would 
rather use this issue to sow anger, division, and fear. They will use 
meaningless resolutions that do nothing to change the status quo, like 
this one, to distract from their failed Congress and their do-nothing 
agenda.
  Mr. Speaker, if you want to see just how House Republicans view 
immigration and the border as a purely political issue, look no further 
than House leadership. After saying for months that border security is 
a crisis and just last month taking a field trip with over 60 House 
Republicans to the border, this week House leadership refused to even 
consider a bipartisan deal negotiated by the Senate before they have 
read it.
  Mr. Speaker, you can't say that the border is in a state of emergency 
yet reject a bipartisan deal to address the crisis.
  We can and must do better than this. Moreover, we owe it to our 
constituents and our country to work toward real, thoughtful solutions 
rather than partisan talking points like H. Res. 957.
  Now, let's turn to H.R. 6914 and H.R. 6918. Supporting the health and 
well-being of mothers and babies should be something we can all agree 
upon, and we would welcome some real collaboration in that area.
  Nonetheless, that is not what the majority has brought to the floor 
today. The fact is that both of these bills are designed to advance an 
extremist agenda to limit Americans' fundamental freedoms, particularly 
with respect to reproductive healthcare.
  It is nothing but a political exercise that our Republican colleagues 
undertake every year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. It is designed 
to cater to the most extreme supporters as they descend on Washington, 
D.C., for an anti-abortion rally.
  The fact is that the MAGA majority's anti-abortion agenda is wildly 
unpopular in this country. The vast majority of Americans do not 
support it, and they have proven that at the polls repeatedly in the 
last couple of years.
  Americans do not want politicians and rightwing extremists 
undermining their freedom to make their own medical and reproductive 
healthcare choices based on their own individual circumstances.
  In the face of the overwhelming and repeated rejection of these 
extremist attempts to interfere in private medical decisions, 
Republicans are now cloaking their efforts in family-friendly rhetoric 
and misleading talking points. So, it is important to dig a little 
deeper and see what these bills are and are not.
  If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really wanted to 
support pregnant women, children, and families, then they would work 
with us to address the shameful fact that maternal mortality in our 
country far exceeds that of our peers. Childbirth is dangerous here in 
the United States, particularly for Black women and their babies, not 
because we don't know how to support healthy outcomes but because of a 
lack of will or interest from Congress.
  It is a full-blown crisis, but it doesn't have to be. When it comes 
to giving our kids brighter futures, we should be talking about 
powerful tools like the expanded child tax credit, which lifted 
millions of children out of poverty. We should be strengthening WIC and 
SNAP, nutrition programs that serve as lifelines for pregnant women, 
mothers, infants, and families. Instead, this MAGA majority has 
proposed deep cuts to these nutrition programs.
  We should pass policies to improve access to high-quality childcare 
and early education services, nutritious food, comprehensive maternal 
and infant healthcare, stable housing, and family-sustaining jobs 
because those are the things that would really help our kids and 
families.

                              {time}  1230

  The policies that our Republican colleagues have brought before us 
today in these two bills do none of that.
  In fact, they would actually divert money away from vulnerable 
families and ultimately endanger women's lives.
  H.R. 6914 purports to be concerned with providing information to 
pregnant college students.
  Of course, there are obvious and unique challenges to balancing 
school and parenting, although students and their families can thrive 
with the right support. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't actually 
provide such support.
  Instead, it requires that colleges inform students only about the 
rights and resources for carrying a pregnancy to term--resources, I 
will add, for which this House majority has sought to dramatically 
slash funding.
  The bill purposely leaves out any requirement for schools to 
distribute medically accurate information regarding all of the 
healthcare options available to pregnant women. If this bill were truly 
about ensuring that pregnant college students have the necessary 
information to make informed decisions to meet their unique 
reproductive healthcare needs, it would include information about 
contraception, abortion, miscarriages, and the services that might be 
available to them during their pregnancy and after.
  If the underlying intent of this bill were not clear enough in its 
one-sided substance, we need only look to the alleged funding section 
of the bill, which would write into law completely unproven and even 
false anti-abortion talking points.
  These are findings that the bill's author could provide no evidence 
to support when it was marked up in committee. However, don't take my 
word for it. Advocates dedicated to advancing civil rights and 
resources for pregnant and parenting students have expressed deep 
concerns about this bill, including groups that are experts on this 
issue like The Coalition For Pregnant and Parenting Students Advocacy.
  It is obvious that this MAGA majority doesn't really care about 
educating and supporting pregnant and parenting students. Instead, they 
would rather leave them in the dark and attempt to deny women the 
freedom to make informed decisions about their own bodies and futures.
  Lastly, I will talk about H.R. 6918, which is another example of 
House Republicans doubling down on an extreme and unpopular agenda to 
try to ban abortion care nationwide. This bill is cloaked in a title 
that most Americans would agree with, the Supporting Pregnant and 
Parenting Women and Families Act.
  In fact, Congress has passed bipartisan legislation to do just that, 
including through TANF funding, the Temporary Assistance to Needy 
Families.

[[Page H157]]

  However, in recent years, there has been growing evidence and a raft 
of studies showing that critical TANF aid for families is being 
diverted to purposes not authorized by Congress.
  One of the greatest causes of concern is the siphoning of Federal 
TANF taxpayer dollars to support so-called crisis pregnancy centers, 
most of which are part of a well-funded arm of the global anti-abortion 
movement.
  There is a growing body of evidence that these crisis pregnancy 
centers use deceptive and coercive tactics to target vulnerable people 
facing unplanned pregnancies, and they often prevent them from 
accessing a full range of appropriate reproductive healthcare, 
including safe abortion care and contraceptives.
  Just as this bill is cloaked in benign pro-family rhetoric, these 
pregnancy centers distribute diapers and formula in order to disguise 
their underlying anti-abortion mission.
  One of the great dangers of these crisis pregnancy centers is that 
they present themselves as legitimate healthcare facilities, but the 
reality is that most are unlicensed, understaffed by medical 
professionals, and unbound by the privacy laws that govern medical 
providers.
  This has led to women being misled and given inaccurate or even 
dangerous information about their pregnancies and the options for care 
that are available to them, including women who have suffered life-
threatening undiagnosed complications in their pregnancies, women who 
have been denied the information and opportunity to access appropriate 
reproductive healthcare for them, and women who have been encouraged to 
undertake dangerous and medically contraindicated procedures.
  There is strong evidence that many pregnancy centers are using the 
public money that States allocate to them through TANF for purposes 
that are not authorized by Congress. That is why last year, the 
Department of Health and Human Services issued a proposed regulation to 
better guide the States in what services were eligible for TANF 
funding, and that is why this bill, H.R. 6918, is so dangerous and 
dishonest.
  When we have a growing mountain of evidence of misuse and even 
fraudulent use of TANF dollars by crisis pregnancy centers, this bill 
by its term would prevent the Department of Health and Human Services 
from any regulation of pregnancy crisis centers.
  House Republicans would green light the unregulated use of public 
money to fund these anti-abortion facilities, many of which have been 
proven to promote false medical claims and misinformation; misrepresent 
their services as providing a full range of reproductive healthcare, 
despite having only anti-abortion services and usually lacking any 
medical personnel. Horrifyingly, they are unbound by HIPAA privacy 
restrictions, and some of these centers collect and distribute women's 
sensitive personal information to organizations within the larger anti-
abortion movement.
  This is what Republicans are trying to push upon American women with 
these bills, and I wholeheartedly disagree.
  Thus, here we are. It is another week, and the House GOP still can't 
get their act together. Their majority is on track to become one of the 
most ineffective in modern history.

  Again, we are just hours from a government shutdown, but instead of 
dealing with that or any of the real problems Americans are facing 
today, this House majority is desperately trying to mask its own 
failure with misleading rhetoric and bills that will never become law. 
It would be a joke if it weren't so serious.
  Led by their most extreme Members, it is clear our Republican 
colleagues don't want to make Congress work better for the American 
people. They want to break it, and they want to campaign on it. They 
want to bring chaos to this Chamber and pass legislation that feeds the 
flames of their desperate culture wars.
  It is irresponsible, it is reckless, and it is not what the American 
people want.
  Mr. Speaker, I deeply oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Langworthy).
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota 
for yielding time to me now, but I am very disappointed to see my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle stand up and defend President 
Biden's plan to restrict resources through TANF that, for many years, 
have provided help for expecting mothers and families who are facing 
uncertainty and hardship.
  The legislation under the rule today, the Support Pregnant and 
Parenting Women and Families Act, introduced by my good friend and 
colleague, Representative Fischbach, will protect access to these 
critical resources through pregnancy centers across the country that 
give vulnerable mothers a hand up when they need it the very most.
  Yet the Biden administration is working to exclude these pregnancy 
centers from the TANF program and thereby restrict access for expecting 
mothers who need things like vitamins, diapers, classes, and 
transportation.
  Pregnancy centers do so much to invest in our community. They are 
often the first stop for a mother who is dealing with an unplanned 
pregnancy and will help her assess her options, provide healthcare 
services, and support her after her child is born.
  For those who choose life, pregnancy centers are a lifeline. The 
bottom line is this: Expectant mothers who qualify and need this hand 
up under TANF deserve any and all options and resources available to 
them, including the option to choose life and to pursue motherhood.
  My colleagues keep saying that they want to support all women and 
their choices, but their support clearly wavers when it comes to 
mothers who have chosen life for their unborn child. I question the 
morality of an administration that seeks to restrict these resources in 
favor of pushing options that are more about promoting abortion 
services and less about simply helping families who are expecting.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank, again, my colleague Representative Michelle 
Fischbach for her leadership on this important legislation, which I am 
a proud cosponsor.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have heard from our colleagues over the course of debate on this 
bill that they think that they need more discretion to spend TANF 
dollars, but if this bill were to pass, a pregnancy center would be 
unregulated. That is what the bill literally says, We cannot regulate 
pregnancy crisis centers. So if they wanted to use TANF dollars to 
stage a Taylor Swift concert, they could because there is to be no 
regulation.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the 
executive summary of a report titled, ``Designed to Deceive: A Study of 
the Crisis Pregnancy Center Industry in Nine States,'' written by the 
Alliance: State Advocates for Women's Rights and Gender Equity.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.

     Executive Summary:

 Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCS) are Anti-Abortion Organizations That 
   Seek to Reach Low-Income People Facing Unintended Pregnancies to 
        Prevent Them From Accessing Abortion and Contraception.

       CPCs, advance, this mission by using deceptive and coercive 
     tactics and medical disinformation, and misleadingly 
     presenting themselves as medical facilities. The modern CPC 
     industry, a well-resourced arm of the global anti-abortion 
     movement, is rapidly expanding while evading public 
     accountability, despite increasing reliance on public funds.


                         context for this study

       We live in the most hostile era for reproductive freedom in 
     decades. The anti-abortion movement's two primary 
     strategies--passing abortion bans and contraception 
     restrictions and expanding crisis pregnancy center networks 
     with taxpayer money--are simultaneously reaching peak, 
     unprecedented levels. As of this writing, the U.S. Supreme 
     Court has allowed Texas Senate Bill 8 to become law in Texas, 
     effectively undermining Roe by establishing a vigilante 
     system wherein private individuals are deputized, and 
     financially incentivized, to enforce the law by suing 
     friends, neighbors, and strangers. This radical law positions 
     Texas CPCs--supported by state funding that has increased 
     twentyfold since 2006--to play a central role in the 
     surveillance of pregnant people.

[[Page H158]]

       While severe legislative restrictions such as Senate Bill 8 
     make headlines, the modernized, proliferating, and mostly 
     evangelical CPC industry's critical role in the anti-
     abortion, anti-LGBTQ+ movement--and effect on the health of 
     pregnant people--is relatively obscured from public view. 
     Modern CPCs are plugged into the global anti-abortion 
     movement's sophisticated digital infrastructure, which 
     facilitates expansion, client surveillance, and systemic, 
     coordinated promotion of anti-abortion disinformation.
       Investment of public money in CPCs is escalating, 
     especially in the states, with virtually no government 
     oversight, accountability, or transparency. Investigations 
     into publicly-funded CPCs by advocates and watchdog groups 
     have found evidence of misuse, waste, and potential skimming 
     of funds in multiple states, including Florida, Michigan, 
     Minnesota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Yet CPCs 
     continue to secure state contracts while the nature and 
     quality of their services remains largely unexamined and 
     unregulated by policymakers.
       States are also enabling CPCs to siphon public funds from 
     safety-net programs for low-income pregnant people and 
     children. In so doing, CPCs exacerbate the very economic 
     scarcity they use to justify their encroachment into under-
     resourced neighborhoods and communities of color: the modern 
     CPC industry has revitalized strategies to target Black 
     women, who are more likely than white women to face barriers 
     to medical care and pregnancy resources.
       Today, crisis pregnancy centers outnumber abortion clinics 
     nationwide by an average of 3 to 1. The disparities are 
     higher in states that fund CPCs: in Pennsylvania, the ratio 
     of CPCs to abortion clinics is 9 to 1; in Minnesota, it is 11 
     to 1. The maternal and public health consequences of this 
     seismic shift in the reproductive health care landscape in 
     the states are unknown.


                    MAJOR STUDY FINDINGS AT A GLANCE

     CPCs Provided Virtually No Medical Care.
       Many CPC websites used language and imagery signifying they 
     were providers of medical services but the services most 
     commonly offered were not medical.
       The most common CPC service was a pregnancy test--usually a 
     self-administered urine-stick test.
       The second most common CPC offering was ``free'' goods, 
     which pregnant people typically had to earn.
       More than 1/2 of CPC's offered ``non-diagnostic'' 
     ultrasound as a tool to signal medical legitimacy and 
     persuade people to carry their pregnancies to term.
       Many CPCs offered sexuality ``education'' as a vehicle for 
     medical disinformation and ideological messaging.
       Almost none of the CPC provided prenatal care.
       Only 1 of the 607 CPCs provided contraception care.
       State-Funded CPCs are More Harmful Than Privately Funded 
     Centers.
       CPCs Routinely Promoted False Medical Claims and Used 
     Deceptive Practices.
       Almost 2/3 of CPCs promoted patently false and/or biased 
     medical claims about pregnancy, abortion, contraception, and 
     reproductive health care providers.
       ``Abortion Pill Reversal''--an unethical practice and non-
     scientific claim--is a CPC priority. More than 1/3 of CPCs 
     promoted APR; in some states more than 1/2 promoted APR.
       Fewer than 1/2, of CPCs indicated they had a licensed 
     medical professional. None indicated whether medical 
     professionals were employed or volunteers, or full- or part-
     time.
       Many CPCs deceptively claimed on their website to have no 
     agenda and to provide full and unbiased information.
       CPCs seek to intercept people seeking health care--10% 
     operated mobile units that can locate near abortion clinics 
     to confuse their patients. Online, CPCs employ digital 
     tactics to intercept people searching for abortion care.
       CPCs Appear to be Local but are Part of A Global Anti-
     Abortion Network.


               the alliance crisis pregnancy center study

        Measuring the proliferating CPC industry's impact on 
     public health must begin with a thorough assessment of the 
     services CPC offer pregnant people--and the services they do 
     not. In the absence of government oversight, the Alliance 
     conducted this Study to document and evaluate CPC services 
     and practices in nine states in which we operate and partner 
     with allies: Alaska, California, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, 
     New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. We 
     investigated 607 CPCs between March 2020 and February 2021 
     and collected over 50 categories of publicly available data 
     through systematic review of CPC websites and social media. 
     In addition, we conducted public records investigations and 
     research into CPC operations in six states (AK, CA, MN, NM, 
     PA, and WA)that further informed the Study. Our findings 
     shine renewed light on the modern CPC industry and expose the 
     particular harms of state-funded CPCs.
       CPCs Provided Virtually No Medical Care.
       The three most common CPC Services were pregnancy test 
     (88.5%), ``free'' material goods (88.1%), and ``counseling'' 
     (78.6%). The fourth most common service was ``non-
     diagnostic'' ultrasound. While approximately one-quarter 
     (28.4%) offered STI testing, most did not provide or refer 
     for STI treatment and none offered barrier-method 
     contraception, a standard of care for STI prevention. Only 
     one CPC offered contraception.
       The most common CPC service was a pregnancy test. Of the 
     CPC specifying type of test, 96% offered a urine test, the 
     self-administered stick tests available at drugstores. Some 
     CPCs claimed to provide ``lab-quality'' drug tests.
       Almost none of the CPCs in the Study provided prenatal 
     care. While most CPCs offered pregnancy tests, the majority 
     (95%) offered no prenatal care and fewer than half made 
     prenatal care referrals. CPCs affiliated with big anti-
     abortion networks (almost half of the CPCs in this Study) 
     provided prenatal care less often than unaffiliated centers. 
     Significantly, state-funded CPCs were less likely to offer or 
     refer for prenatal care than CPCs without state funding.
       The second most common CPC offering was ``free'' goods, 
     which pregnant people actually had to earn. Most CPCs (88.1%) 
     advertised free material goods, including maternity and baby 
     supplies, but noted that provision of these goods was 
     contingent on the pregnant person's participation in ``earn 
     while you learn'' classes or counseling, Bible studies, 
     abstinence seminars, video screenings, or other ideological 
     CPC programming. While CPCs target people considering 
     abortion, research shows most pregnant people who seek out a 
     CPC do so because they cannot afford diapers and other infant 
     and maternity goods CPCs claim to offer for free.
       More than half of CPCs offered ``non-diagnostic'' 
     ultrasound. The fourth most common CPC service, offered by 
     56% of CPCs, was ``non-diagnostic'' ultrasound, which cannot 
     study placenta or amniotic fluid, or detect fetal abnormality 
     or fetal distress. Anti-abortion organizations steering the 
     CPC movement promote the use of ultrasound technology as a 
     tool to persuade clients to carry their pregnancies to term 
     and falsely signal medical legitimacy. The American Institute 
     of Ultrasound in Medicine condemns the use of ultrasounds for 
     any non-medical purpose: ``The use of ultrasound without a 
     medical indication to view the fetus, obtain images of the 
     fetus, or identify the fetal external genitalia is 
     inappropriate and contrary to responsible medical practice.''
       CPCs offered sexuality ``education'' as a vehicle for 
     medical disinformation and ideological messaging. Almost 17% 
     of CPCs claimed to offer sexuality-related programming, which 
     typically focused on abstinence and also featured religious 
     and shame-based messages and harmful stereotypes about LGBTQ+ 
     youth and non-traditional families. Approximately 8% of CPCs 
     overall indicated that they offer these services off-site, 
     including in public schools; a full 20% of CPCs in Washington 
     offered these programs off-site.
       CPCs Routinely Promoted False Medical Claims and Used 
     Deceptive Practices.
       Almost two-thirds (63%) of CPCs promoted patently false 
     and/or biased medical claims, mostly centered on pregnancy, 
     contraception, and abortion, especially medication abortion. 
     False claims typically included patently untrue information 
     about reproductive health care and providers, false and 
     misleading information regarding risks of abortion and 
     contraception, and deceptive citing to make it seem such 
     claims were supported by legitimate medical sources when they 
     are not. Many CPC sites claimed people who have had abortions 
     suffer from ``post-abortion syndrome,'' a non-existent 
     diagnosis that has been debunked by medical professionals.
       While many CPCs claimed to be medical clinics, fewer than 
     half (47%) indicated whether they had a licensed medical 
     professional on staff. Only 16% indicated a physician and 25% 
     indicated a registered nurse was affiliated with their staff; 
     none indicated whether licensed medical professionals were 
     employees or volunteers, nor whether they were engaged full- 
     or part-time. Many CPCs falsely claimed to have no agenda and 
     to provide full and unbiased information to support a 
     pregnant person's choice. Many disguised the fact that they 
     do not provide or refer for abortion. Among CPCs in this 
     Study, 10% operated mobile units that can locate near 
     abortion clinics to confuse and intercept their patients.
       Abortion Pill Reversal''--an unethical practice and non-
     scientific claim--is a CPC priority. ``Abortion pill 
     reversal'' is an anti-abortion marketing term that refers to 
     the experimental administration of high doses of progesterone 
     to pregnant people who have taken the first, but not the 
     second, of two medicines for a medication abortion. Anti-
     abortion advertising claims this can ``reverse'' an abortion, 
     but medical experts say such claims ``are not based on 
     science and do not meet clinical standards.'' Its health 
     effects are unknown; the only credible clinical study was 
     stopped after one-quarter of the participants went to the 
     hospital with severe bleeding.
       More than one-third (35%) of CPCs in the Study promoted 
     APR, with signifIcant variation across states: More than half 
     the CPCs in Idaho (57.1%) and Washington (50.9%) promoted 
     APR. Overall, some 5% of CPCs said they provided APR, but 
     none indicated who administered it, whether it was 
     administered vaginally, orally, or by injection, or whether 
     follow-up care was provided.
       State-Funded CPCs are More Harmful Than Privately Funded 
     Centers.
       The Alliance Study found that taxpayers are unknowingly 
     funding the most problematic practices of the CPC industry. 
     State-funded CPCs promoted abortion pill reversal at 
     signifIcantly higher rates and offered prenatal care and 
     referral less often than CPCs without state funding.
       CPCs Appear to be Local but are Part of a Global Anti-
     Abortion Network.

[[Page H159]]

       Almost half (45.8%) of the CPCs in this Study were 
     affiliated with one or more of the international, national, 
     and regional right-wing organizations that steer the CPC 
     industry, including Heartbeat International, Care Net, and 
     National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. These groups 
     provide digital strategy, infrastructure, and marketing 
     tactics to help CPCs intercept people searching online for 
     abortion care, signal that they are trusted sources of health 
     care, and secure public funding. At least one of these groups 
     collects and stores sensitive client data such as sexual 
     history in ``digital dossiers.''


                              conclusions

       While CPCs misleadingly present themselves as medical 
     facilities to draw low-income people experiencing an 
     unplanned pregnancy, the four services most often provided by 
     CPCs served no medical purpose. Most CPCs disseminate medical 
     disinformation focused on stigmatizing abortion and 
     contraception and promote made-up, abortion-related mental 
     health conditions not recognized by medical experts. The 
     promotion of ``abortion pill reversal,'' an unethical, non-
     scientific practice based on a fraudulent claim, is currently 
     a top CPC priority.
       While people considering abortion are main targets of CPC 
     marketing efforts, research shows that, in fact, the majority 
     of people who go to CPCs intend to carry their pregnancies to 
     term and are primarily seeking the pregnancy tests and infant 
     supplies, especially diapers, CPCs claim to offer for free.
       In short, it is widespread financial insecurity and 
     inadequate support for pregnant people that makes people 
     vulnerable to CPCs. CPCs use deceptive and misleading 
     practices to exploit economic insecurity and gaps in access 
     to health care to advance their anti-abortion, anti-
     contraception agenda. Robust research documents that being 
     denied abortion care exposes both the pregnant person and 
     their family to a range of potential harms. But we do not 
     know the health consequences visiting a CPC has on the 
     typical CPC client; a pregnant person needing prenatal care 
     and parenting resources.
       With CPCs outnumbering abortion clinics in almost every 
     state, this unregulated network of ideological, deceptive, 
     and manipulative providers of mostly non-medical services is 
     increasingly more likely to be the most logistically 
     accessible facility in the landscape of services for pregnant 
     people with limited resources. The disparities detected in 
     services between state-funded and other CPCs within the same 
     state underscores the need for a coherent analysis of state-
     funded CPCs, and the consequences of government investment in 
     CPCs on maternal and public health.


    call to action: hold cpcs accountable to protect reproductive & 
                            maternal health

       The Alliance Study findings make clear that a thorough 
     data-driven assessment of CPC services, funding streams, and 
     accountability measures is needed in states across the 
     country.
       It is our hope that this Study spurs stakeholders to assess 
     how CPCs are targeting and treating low-income pregnant 
     people and how the seismic shift in the reproductive 
     landscape--wherein CPCs have proliferated as access to 
     evidence-based reproductive healthcare and abortion has 
     diminished--affects maternal and public health. We already 
     know delaying access to abortion care poses a range of 
     potential harm to pregnant people; we call for future 
     research to specifically investigate the impact of visiting a 
     CPC on maternal health and birth outcomes.
       The United States is in the throes of a maternal mortality 
     and morbidity crisis marked by severe racial disparities, 
     with Black, Latino and Indigenous people and infants 
     suffering disproportionate harms. And we are still in the 
     midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented public 
     health crisis that is exacerbating pregnancy-related 
     mortality and racial disparities, especially worsening Black 
     maternal health. And, despite these interrelated public 
     health crises, anti-abortion policymakers and bureaucrats are 
     aggressively advancing an ideological agenda that further 
     undermines maternal health and specifically targets Black 
     women.
       In this context, we urgently call on state lawmakers to 
     stop funding CPCs and to dramatically increase investment in 
     equitable access to evidence-based reproductive health care, 
     especially in under-resourced communities.
       We call on state policymakers nationwide to act on the 
     detailed and state-specific policy recommendations in this 
     report to: protect CPC clients and pregnant people seeking 
     health care; promote transparency and best practices in 
     publicly funded programs; address significant and deepening 
     gaps in maternal and reproductive health care; and eliminate 
     mounting obstacles to health care experienced by low-income 
     pregnant and parenting people.
       These findings reaffirm that the Alliance mission as state-
     based advocates is more pressing than ever: The fight for 
     reproductive freedom is in the states.

  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, this report studies crisis pregnancy 
centers in Alaska, California, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, 
Pennsylvania, and Minnesota. Overall, its findings show that crisis 
pregnancy centers provided virtually no medical care, promoted false 
medical claims, and used deceptive practices; State-funded crisis 
pregnancy centers are more harmful than privately-funded centers; and 
crisis pregnancy centers appear to be local, but are actually part of a 
global anti-abortion network.
  It is clear that these sorts of manipulative and unregulated centers 
are not what is best for women and children's health, and actually have 
been proven to misuse Federal taxpayer dollars. We absolutely shouldn't 
be allowing Federal dollars to flow to them without any scrutiny.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a serious question for my 
Republican colleagues: Did the Trump campaign write these bills for 
you? They seem right out of his political playbook--cruel, uninformed, 
nasty bills. You are turning the House of Representatives into the 
committee to re-elect Donald Trump.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Minnesota can claim whatever she 
wants about these bills, but I wish the other side would just be clear. 
I wish they would just come clean with the American people. What they 
want is to ban abortion, a total ban. That is what these bills are 
about.
  Don't believe their spin. This debate isn't about giving students 
more information or helping provide resources to families or whatever 
other misleading junk you hear from the other side. That is all a bunch 
of baloney, a bunch of BS.
  Read their bills. Read the bills, and you will see what they do.
  The Pregnant Students' Rights Act doesn't give anybody any new 
rights. It contains a bunch of completely made-up claims meant to 
stigmatize abortion. It lets schools not inform students of their 
actual rights with regard to contraception or abortion care. That is 
the truth.
  Republicans can name the bill whatever they want. The problem is, 
when you read the bill, people actually see that the title is 
misleading.
  I read the bill. The title is misleading. Their other bill is about 
crisis pregnancy centers, and I know a little bit about crisis 
pregnancy centers. I have one in my district that almost killed 
somebody because they told her that everything was fine when she had an 
ectopic pregnancy, and she almost died.
  These centers are about pushing a political agenda, about deceiving 
women--some who are actually trying to seek access to abortion care.
  Republicans say that Federal funding can't go to Planned Parenthood 
for political reasons, then why the hell is it going to these dangerous 
political pregnancy centers that push their own agenda? I mean, give me 
a break.
  Now, look, just to be honest about it, the Republican position is to 
ban abortion nationwide. We know overturning Roe was just the start. 
Now they want to criminalize abortion, too, and throw women in jail for 
making decisions about their own bodies. Texas, Kentucky, South 
Carolina, they are all trying to lock women up if they get an abortion.
  Every single week, Republicans are here on the House floor pushing 
for more extremist culture war nonsense like this.
  Maybe that is why they keep losing elections because every time they 
put their anti-abortion agenda on the ballot, they lose. You would 
think that they would take the hint. Maybe that is why there are so few 
speakers on the other side talking about these bills today.
  The sickest part of it all, the most disgusting thing is, they do not 
have one shred of compassion or care about the baby after it is born. 
They talk about the sanctity of life this and the sanctity of life 
that, and then they underfund and cut WIC and take food away from 
postpartum moms and babies. They cut programs that support maternal 
health. They block the expanded child tax credit, which kept millions 
of young children and babies out of poverty, and they don't even want 
to talk about the Black maternal health crisis in this country.

                              {time}  1245

  Forgive us if we think it is a little hypocritical to come down here 
and get lectured about life from a Republican Party that apparently 
thinks life begins at conception but ends at birth.

[[Page H160]]

  These are awful, awful, awful bills. We are here because the 
Republican Party is incompetent. They have no vision, no agenda, no way 
of making life better for people. They are the party of abortion bans, 
insurrections, and illegitimate investigations, and they will pay for 
it at the ballot box.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused. Helping women and their babies 
and providing information is now an extreme agenda according to my 
colleagues across the aisle.
  Supporting and promoting unrestricted abortion up until the time of 
birth is an extreme agenda.
  The majority of pregnancy resource centers are affiliated with a 
national organization and have voluntarily signed on to an industry 
standard called Commitment of Care and Competence created by Heartbeat 
International that set an ethical code where they agree to adopt a 
transparent and honest service model.
  Pregnancy resource centers provide honest information about services 
they offer, including ultrasounds and pregnancy testing. They do not 
hold themselves out to provide all forms of healthcare.
  According to a recent report surveying 2,750 pregnancy care centers 
in 2022, there were 4,779 licensed medical staff, 5,396 licensed 
medical volunteers, over 500,000 hours of ultrasounds performed, and 
over 100,000 hours of RNs meeting with STD and STI tests for clients.
  If my colleagues really believed in giving pregnant women every 
option, like they claim, they would have no problem with this bill. We 
are talking about information and care.
  However, the fact that they are pushing against it so passionately 
just proves what my colleagues and the pro-life community have been 
saying all along, the left is antiwoman and will find any avenue they 
can to encourage women to have abortions. There are so many resources 
that exist that would actually empower them during their pregnancy and 
raising their families.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a 
letter from the Coalition for Pregnant and Parenting Students Advocacy 
and other organizations dedicated to advancing civil rights protections 
and resources for pregnant and parenting students in opposition to H.R. 
6914.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
                                                 January 10, 2024.
     Hon. Virginia Foxx,
     Chair, House Education and Workforce Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Robert ``Bobby'' Scott,
     Ranking Member, House Education and Workforce Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member Scott: We are a 
     diverse group of advocates and experts dedicated to advancing 
     civil rights protections and institutional resources for 
     pregnant and parenting students. Students who are pregnant 
     and/or parents deserve the opportunity to complete their 
     education free from bias and harassment, in environments that 
     support them on their educational journeys. Unfortunately, 
     pregnant and parenting students are routinely stigmatized, 
     discriminated against, and denied the resources, 
     accommodations, and support they need to thrive in their 
     educational institutions.
       More than 5.4 million college students in the United States 
     are parents, which is nearly one quarter of undergraduate 
     students and nearly one third of graduate students. Despite 
     earning higher GPAs than non-parenting students, parenting 
     college students are less likely to graduate. This is not due 
     to personal failing, but rather a lack of institutional 
     support and recognition of the unique barriers to college 
     completion for parenting students. Pregnant and parenting 
     students often experience feeling disconnected from the 
     larger education community and are not aware of who they can 
     speak to when they experience discrimination because of their 
     pregnancy or parenting status.
       This latest bill to ``protect the rights of pregnant 
     students'' falls far short of the protections that are 
     actually necessary for pregnant and parenting students and 
     their children. The Pregnant Students' Rights Act is a thinly 
     veiled anti-abortion law which would not address the key 
     barriers to pregnant students' educational attainment, and 
     instead would further shame and stigmatize people for their 
     pregnancy outcomes.
       The proposed bill relies on anti-abortion language and 
     seeks to limit students' reproductive healthcare decisions. 
     This type of language is part of a deliberate strategy by the 
     anti-abortion movement to further legal grounds for a 
     national abortion ban now that the Supreme Court has 
     overturned the constitutional right to abortion care as 
     established in Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, the bill language 
     contrasts with existing legal protections for pregnant 
     students experiencing a range of outcomes related to their 
     pregnancies.
       Our belief in personal autonomy and respect for every 
     person's capacity to make their own decisions--including 
     whether to continue their pregnancy or not--is at the core of 
     our work to support pregnant and parenting students. This 
     bill does not contain any meaningful supports that would 
     actually help pregnant and parenting students be able to 
     remain enrolled and meet their educational goals.
       Such supports are critically needed, and include:
       Strengthened Title IX protections
       Nondiscrimination protections at the state and local level
       Accessible and affordable child care, and increased funding 
     for on-campus child care
       Access to early education and pre-kindergarten services
       Transportation access
       Basic needs security (including food, housing, clothing, 
     etc.)
       Flexible school attendance policies
       Lactation accommodations
       Less stigma and shame around young parenthood
       Increased accountability measures for institutions who fail 
     to protect pregnant and parenting students
       Federal funding to support campus Title IX offices' work to 
     prevent and investigate discrimination against pregnant 
     students
       Mandatory data collection on students' parenting statuses
       Strides toward these meaningful supports are in progress. 
     We applaud, for example, Representatives Lucy McBath and 
     Deborah Ross's recent introduction of the Understanding 
     Student Parent Outcomes Act of 2023, which would allow 
     essential data collection on the barriers to college 
     graduation for pregnant and parenting students. But sweeping 
     legislation is necessary to ensure that pregnant and 
     parenting students and their families are protected.
       Although pregnant and parenting students face many 
     roadblocks, they can thrive when their educational 
     institutions listen to them, support them, and prevent 
     discrimination against them. While balancing their health, 
     caregiving responsibilities, and educational goals is 
     challenging, these added responsibilities often renew 
     students' dedication to their studies. While the decision to 
     parent and/or continue pregnancy is a personal one, the 
     barriers that pregnant and parenting students face are not. 
     This proposed bill would reinforce structural and 
     institutional bias and scrutiny of the decisions students 
     make regarding their personal lives.
       We welcome the opportunity to have an open dialogue with 
     the sponsors of the ``Pregnant Students' Rights Act'' and 
     with any other members of Congress who are ready to step up 
     as the champion that pregnant and parenting students in our 
     nation need and deserve.
           Sincerely,
       The Coalition for Pregnant and Parenting Students Advocacy:
       A Better Balance; Generation Hope; Healthy Teen Network; 
     Institute for Women's Policy Research; Justice and Joy 
     National Collaborative; National Women's Law Center; New 
     America Higher Education Program; Pregnant Scholar Initiative 
     at the Center for WorkLife Law.
       Joined by:
       Advocates for Youth; American Association of University 
     Women; American Civil Liberties Union; American Federation of 
     Teachers; American Humanist Association; BreastfeedLA; 
     California Women's Law Center; Center for Freethought 
     Equality.
       Center for Reproductive Rights; Clearinghouse on Women's 
     Issues; Colorado Teen Parent Collaborative; End Rape On 
     Campus; Family Equality; Feminist Majority Foundation; 
     Guttmacher Institute; Harvard Law School; Ipas; League of 
     Women Voters of the United States; Legal Momentum, The 
     Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund; National 
     Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health; 
     National Center for Lesbian Rights; National Center for 
     Parent Leadership, Advocacy and Community Empowerment; 
     National Center for Transgender Equality; National Council of 
     Jewish Women; National Education Association; National Family 
     Planning & Reproductive Health Association; National Latina 
     Institute for Reproductive Justice; National Partnership for 
     Women & Families; National Women's Political Caucus; 
     Physicians for Reproductive Health; Planned Parenthood 
     Federation of America; Positive Women's Network-USA; Power to 
     Decide; Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-
     Choice America); Southeast Asia Resource Action Center; Stop 
     Sexual Assault in Schools; The Hope Center at Temple 
     University; Union for Reform Judaism; Women of Reform 
     Judaism; Won't She Do It.

  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, this letter expresses concern that this 
bill is

[[Page H161]]

based upon unproven anti-abortion rhetoric and seeks to limit students' 
ability to make reproductive healthcare decisions with a full range of 
information.
  It goes on to say that the bill does not contain any meaningful 
support to help pregnant and parenting students meet their educational 
goals, and it notes how the bill leaves out policies we know would 
actually make a difference, like strengthen Title IX protections, 
accessible childcare and early education, basic needs security, and 
accountability measures for institutions that fail to protect pregnant 
and parenting students.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, today's Republican bills are part 
of their extreme agenda to create a Federal abortion ban.
  The first bill, H.R. 6918, would divert Federal funding used to help 
feed and house poor families and give it to anti-abortion centers.
  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists warned that 
these centers often mislead women with false medical information and, 
in the process, endanger public health. It is really endangering 
women's health because across the country we are hearing stories of 
women who are dying or nearly dying because of these extreme 
restrictions on their healthcare.
  The other bill, H.R. 6914, should be named the student anti-abortion 
bill and not the Pregnant Students Bill of Rights because the bill 
restricts pregnant students' rights when Republicans restrict access to 
information about the full range of healthcare available to pregnant 
students or the benefits that might help a pregnant woman and her child 
receive nutrition assistance or Medicaid benefits; benefits, I would 
point out, that Republicans oppose. They don't want our babies to be 
healthy.
  Representative Stevens submitted an amendment to H.R. 6914 that would 
provide pregnant students information about miscarriages, a devastating 
loss that affects 1 million women in the U.S. each year. Shockingly, 
not a single Republican voted for this amendment to give students 
health information about miscarriages. In fact, Republicans opposed 
every Democratic amendment intended to make this bill more scientific 
and objective.
  Last night, the chair of the Education and the Workforce Committee 
claimed this bill says absolutely nothing about abortion and was just a 
students' rights bill. A strange statement, since abortion is mentioned 
nine times in the bill.
  ``Mujeres,'' ``Women,'' don't let anyone fool you. Extreme 
Republicans want to keep us in the dark.
  We need to keep Congress out of decisions that women deserve to make 
for themselves in doctors' offices on campuses and everywhere else 
women have healthcare needs.
  Finally, the last bill on today's rule is a useless resolution that 
does absolutely nothing to help the problems at the border.
  Resolutions like H.R. 957 that distort a real problem we are facing 
at the border and statements like we hear from President Trump that 
immigrants are poisoning the blood of our Nation are dangerous. They 
demonize all immigrants and lead to a rise in white supremacy and hate 
crimes, and they do nothing to solve our problems at the border.
  Let me be clear. I want a secure and humane border. Democrats have 
put forth specific policies that address the root causes of migration, 
because the best way to stop the surge of migrants is to help them stay 
in their own countries. We have proposed funding and policy fixes for 
our broken immigration system, solutions that Republicans keep 
rejecting.
  Instead, they provide a resolution that offers no solutions.
  We need vision, and Republicans are only giving us division. Vision, 
not division, is what Democrats are about.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and on 
the bills.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to repeat it: Helping women and their babies and 
providing information is not an extreme agenda. We are talking about 
taking care of women and their babies.
  Supporting and promoting unrestricted abortion up to the time of 
birth is an extreme agenda, and it is a real shame the Democrats and 
the Biden administration are purposefully targeting and misrepresenting 
pregnancy centers in the rule and seeking to intimidate States that 
fund them and denying college students information.
  Pregnancy resource centers play a vital role to both mothers, 
fathers, and their families, empowering them in their decision to 
choose life for their baby by providing realistic alternatives. They 
are another option for women who choose to use their services who are 
looking for an alternative to abortion.
  All pregnancy resource centers are open and receive clients on a 
voluntary basis, and it is disgraceful that Democrats misconstrue these 
organizations in an effort to limit a woman's choice to raise their 
child.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, could you please advise how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania has 7 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would 
ensure every American has full access to essential reproductive 
healthcare services, including abortion care.
  Since the Dobbs decision, every State in the Union has taken action 
on abortion in some way. Many States have used it as an opportunity to 
enact laws that ban specific instances of abortion or abortion care 
entirely. Republicans have reiterated time and again that that is their 
goal, to ban abortion nationwide.
  The abortion access landscape is deeply fractured, and Americans 
continue to face the devastating consequences of abortion bans and 
restrictions on both patients' health and the greater healthcare 
ecosystem.
  H.R. 12 ensures every American has full access to vital reproductive 
healthcare and will stop the devastating health consequences for women 
when abortion access is banned or limited.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record along with any extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).
  Ms. PRESSLEY. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we 
will bring up legislation to protect a woman's right to make her own 
healthcare decisions, the Women's Health Protection Act.
  This is necessary because Republican bills being brought to the floor 
share a common goal, to limit access to reproductive healthcare for 
those who need it most. Like so many of the bills this Republican 
majority has advanced, these bills are intentionally designed to 
mislead with biased and inaccurate information and to shame those who 
seek abortion care.
  Republicans are continuing their politically violent, thinly veiled 
misinformation campaign to ultimately enact a national abortion ban, a 
forced birth mandate. Now, they are using our pregnant students as 
their pawns. The young woman in college making the life-changing 
decision on when and how to start a family deserves comprehensive and 
medically accurate information.
  Do not fall for the okey-doke. They are playing with people's lives 
instead of trying to save and change and improve them.
  Republicans don't care about the people, certainly not pregnant 
students. They have consistently undermined access to contraception, 
defunded on-campus childcare, and excluded information on essential 
abortion care from the bill they want us to vote for.
  In fact, Republicans do not care about any pregnant person when they

[[Page H162]]

seek to expand crisis pregnancy centers. Since my days on the Boston 
City Council, I have fought to stop these sham clinics. They use 
coercion to prevent women from accessing essential abortion care and 
operate as anti-choice propaganda centers.
  As the chair of the Abortion Rights and Access Task Force under our 
Pro-Choice Caucus, allow me to set the record straight: Abortion care 
is healthcare, and a fundamental human right.
  When the Supreme Court overturned the right to an abortion with the 
support of Republicans nationwide, they created the most life-
threatening conditions for pregnant women in America in over 50 years.
  If Republicans truly cared about pregnant students or healthcare or 
personal autonomy or even the fundamental right, freedom, to make 
decisions about your own body, they would bring our bill, the Women's 
Health Protection Act, to the House floor to overturn the Dobbs 
decision and codify the right to an abortion. Anything less is a 
disgrace.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  This MAGA majority has a bleak and nihilistic vision of our 
government. It is a vision where congressional power is wielded to take 
down political rivals; to force extremist beliefs on every American, 
particularly women; and to shamelessly sow division and fear, not to 
actually serve all Americans.
  It is a vision where the idea of working together across party lines 
on behalf of all Americans is so anathema to the Republican Party that 
it can cause a Speaker to lose his gavel or rank-and-file Members of 
Congress to lose their primaries. It is where standing up against lies 
and for the Constitution results in death threats and where the 
integrity and core values of our country's institutions are continually 
chipped away.
  This is an unacceptable way to govern. It is not governance at all. 
Americans deserve so much better. Let's stop playing these ridiculous 
games and get to work on the work that the people sent us to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and 
the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We certainly have covered a lot of topics here today, and House 
Republicans are working hard to keep our commitments to the American 
people: holding government accountable, securing our border, and 
protecting the rights of the unborn and their mothers.
  Conservatives care deeply about defending the unborn and empowering 
women to confidently choose life, whether it be on a college campus or 
by ensuring access to care at pregnancy centers.
  As thousands march for life across the country in the coming days, 
now is the perfect time to raise awareness of all the wonderful options 
that exist for women.
  For nearly 3 years, we have seen a failure to act by the executive 
branch of this government to secure our borders. Biden beat his own 
record, with the 2023 fiscal year beating 2022 as the worst year at the 
border.
  Mr. Speaker, 169 individuals on the terror watch list were 
apprehended trying to cross the border illegally. That number includes 
only the ones that we know about.
  I am thankful for the hard work and thankless work our Customs and 
Border Patrol agents are doing and do not want to diminish any of the 
work that they are doing, but the administration's negligence has 
damaged our national security. Whether it is done through incompetence 
or malice, those responsible must be held accountable for their 
inaction.
  To be clear, I am not talking about those hardworking CBP agents. I 
am talking about DHS Secretary Mayorkas; the so-called border czar, 
Vice President Harris; and President Joe Biden.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and underlying legislation.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to comment on 
H.R. 3058, the Recruiting Families Using Data Act.
  There is an undeniable shortage of foster care placements in America, 
and an even more drastic lack of foster families with individual foster 
parents that can care for our Foster Youth. Furthermore, it is 
imperative that Congress ensures that foster children receive the 
highest standards of care in all current and future placements. This 
includes ensuring the availability placements that can be respectful of 
all of the individualities that foster youth hold.
  That is why, in my capacity as a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee, who has jurisdiction over this legislation, as well as the 
Chairwoman on the Congressional Caucus on foster youth (otherwise 
referred to as CCFY) I am proud to support this bill. I will also point 
out that Congressman Kildee is one of our strongest advocates on the 
Congressional Caucus on Foster Youth, and I am a proud cosponsor of 
this legislation alongside my fellow CCFY cochairs, Representatives 
Bacon and Scanlon.
  I often reflect on an instance that occurred when I was age 14, upon 
a visit to my aunt in my home town. I was awakened in the middle of the 
night with the police at the door. They ushered in a family of twelve 
children. My aunt was identified as an emergency placement for these 
foster youth out of a limited number of adults who had been previously 
vetted to be foster parents. At midnight, I suddenly worked with my 
aunt to gather the needed supplies for these children, including items 
like bedding.
  While my aunt was an outstanding foster parent, moments like these 
occur frequently and exemplify the phenomenon that many youth feel when 
they enter care. Placements too often feel to youth like they are 
thrown to a stranger who the state has hired at random who is suddenly 
an authority of a child's life.
  Thankfully, the Recruiting Families Using Data Act takes several 
important steps that can ensure that a foster care placement feels less 
alien to a new foster youth and is a more comfortable place for foster 
children to land during a tumultuous time in their lives.
  One provision in this legislation is its requirement that whenever 
possible, the existing family of youth who are entering foster care are 
consulted regarding the most appropriate placement for the youth. This 
serves to not only maintain family bonds, but also increases the 
possibility that a foster placement has cultural competency with 
respect to a youth's background.
  This bill importantly also includes measures to improve cultural 
competency of foster placements. This is through its provision that 
states, ``diligently recruit potential foster and adoptive families 
that reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of the children in foster 
care''. For example, we know that African American youth are 
disproportionately overrepresented in the foster care system however, 
there is not a like amount of African American Foster Parents.
  Another anecdote that often comes to mind is a little girl of mixed 
heritage who I knew that ran away from her foster home and chose to 
come to my own home. It came to light that her reasoning for these 
actions was because she was in a foster home with white parents, and 
she knew that my own daughter would actually be able to handle her 
African American hair in a way that her white foster parents were not 
able to. After working with these foster parents to improve their 
ability to help the girl with her hair, we were able to make a 
successful reunification. It is that simple. We can fix this.
  Finally, I would like to emphasize that with the shortage of foster 
placements, it is all the more difficult to place foster youth with 
special needs in homes that are prepared to meet their needs. One such 
example of special needs is sibling groups. It is certainly a tragedy 
that upon enduring the trauma of being brought into the foster care 
system, children often also face the trauma for being indefinitely 
separated from their known biological siblings. Another example is that 
foster youth who are part of the LGBTQ+ community need special 
considerations to secure a safe and accepting placement while in foster 
care. This is all the more challenging as we are seeing vitriol toward 
this community nationwide. Youth also can have particular dietary needs 
either pertaining to health matters or cultural identity that should be 
catered to in a foster placement.
  I am so glad that the House of Representatives is choosing to address 
all of these issues through the passage of the Recruiting Families 
Using Data Act. I am looking forward to continuing to work on behalf of 
foster youth with my colleagues in this constructive manner as we move 
forward.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H. 
Res. 969--the rule providing for consideration of the following:
  H.R. 6914--to require institutions of higher education to disseminate 
information on the

[[Page H163]]

rights of, and accommodations and resources for, pregnant students, and 
for other purposes;
  H.R. 6918--to prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
from restricting funding for pregnancy centers; and
  H. Res. 957--denouncing the Biden administration's open-borders 
policies, condemning the national security and public safety crisis 
along the southwest border, and urging President Biden to end his 
administration's open-borders policies.
  This resolution, providing for debate on these highly politicized and 
dangerous bills, is yet another shameful effort to erode and dismantle 
the rights and protections of Americans across the country, and to 
distract the American people with unviable solutions for immigration 
and border control--all in the face of inaction to prevent our 
government from shutting down once again.
  H. Res. 969 is a measure that must be opposed for the reasons stated 
below.
  As it pertains to H.R. 6914, this bill requires higher education 
institutions that participate in federal education programs to 
disseminate information on the rights and resources afforded to 
prospective, full- and part-time students who are pregnant or may 
become pregnant to encourage them to carry their pregnancy to term.
  These institutions would be required to share this information by 
email at the start of each academic year, in student handbooks. at each 
orientation for enrolled students, at student health and counseling 
centers, and on the school's website.
  A list of anti-abortion ``findings'' in the bill insinuate that women 
who have an abortion are at risk of developing mental health issues, 
abusing drugs and alcohol, and becoming suicidal.
  Amendments in committee offered to make it clear that schools are 
still allowed to disseminate information on access to sexual and 
reproductive health services and the rights, protections, and 
accommodation afforded to students under Title IX were voted down by 
Republicans on the Committee.
  As it pertains to H.R. 6918, this bill prohibits the Department of 
Health and Human Services from restricting funding to pregnancy 
centers, which are defined as any organization that ``supports 
protecting the life of the mother and unborn child'' and ``offers 
resources and services to mothers, fathers, and families.''
  This legislation redirects critical funding to antiabortion 
facilities, which includes so-called ``crisis pregnancy centers,'' that 
operate under the guise of legitimate health care providers.
  At a time when women and girls' reproductive health care is already 
under attack from Republicans across the country, my colleagues across 
the aisle want to go even further by taking money from legitimate 
providers and redistributing it to these centers whose staff are not 
required to have any medical credentials.
  Additionally, it must be noted that these harmful bills are futile 
attempts that will be vetoed by this Administration.
  As we know, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 6914 and H.R. 
6918.
  As highlighted in the White House Statement of Administrative Policy 
(SAP), the Administration clearly stated its opposition to H.R. 6914 in 
its current form.
  Existing federal civil rights laws have long prohibited 
discrimination against students on the basis of pregnancy and related 
conditions, and institutions of higher education are already required 
to provide reasonable modifications to pregnant students--from modified 
class schedules to medical leave.
  The Administration stated that it will continue taking action to 
ensure that students know their rights under federal law and have 
access to the comprehensive, evidence-based information and resources 
they need to make informed decisions about their health care.
  And as highlighted by the White House in its SAP to H.R. 6918, 
contrary to the purported purpose of this bill, it would divert federal 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds from effective 
supports for pregnant and parenting women and families.
  Indeed, the bill seeks to prevent the Department of Health and Human 
Services from even considering commonsense program integrity measures 
that ensure that the use of federal TANF funds is consistent with 
federal law and the long-standing purposes set by Congress.
  Members of Congress from both parties have recognized the importance 
of ensuring that federal TANF funds serve their intended purposes, and 
the Department's proposal would merely ensure that federal TANF funds 
are used consistent with the statutory requirements.
  I stand with the Administration in stating that we remain committed 
to supporting the economic security, health, and well-being of women 
and families across the country, and I urge my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle to make this commitment as well.
  As it pertains to H. Res. 957, this resolution does nothing to 
address legitimate issues at the southern border--instead, it repeats 
an old list of hyperbolic Republican talking points on immigration.
  Rather than working constructively to address these issues, House 
Republicans continue to make the evidence-free argument that President 
Biden, Vice President Harris, and Secretary Mayorkas have intentionally 
created a ``national security and public safety crisis'' at the 
southern border.
  This bill peddles the false narrative that President Biden has an 
open-borders policy and villainizes immigrants fleeing dangerous 
situations.
  And it does nothing to advance common sense solutions to improve our 
immigration system like creating better legal pathways, increasing 
processing capacity at ports of entry, or funding more immigration 
judges to reduce the asylum backlog.
  It is truly shameful that just days until a government shutdown, my 
Republican colleagues continue to waste time with a resolution that 
repeats the same, tired, inaccurate talking points on immigration and 
the border.
  Once again, Republicans talk a big game when it comes to immigration 
and border security--but instead of trying to pass thoughtful and 
bipartisan legislation that might fix the problems in our immigration 
system, their resolution accomplishes nothing.
  Let's look at the facts.
  Today, there are approximately 38,000 people in immigration 
detention, which is 4,000 more than what DHS is funded for and roughly 
what the Trump administration averaged in Fiscal Year 2018.
  The Biden administration has also significantly increased removals 
(in ways that many in our caucus worry violates due process).
  Since the end of Title 42 last year, the Biden administration has 
removed or returned to Mexico over 470,000 individuals, including over 
78,000 individual members of family units, including children.
  The total is nearly equivalent to the number of people removed in all 
of fiscal year 2019 under the Trump administration.
  This is hardly an open border.
  Time and again, my colleagues across the aisle have refused to 
support additional resources and personnel for the border.
  In 2021, all but six current House Republicans voted against the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal, which provided additional funding to 
ports of entry to combat smuggling of people and drugs, and for 
modernization.
  All but two current House Republicans voted against providing robust 
funding for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and border security 
operations in the Fiscal Year 2023 appropriations omnibus legislation.
  That bill provided more than $17 billion to CBP, including funding 
for an additional 300 U.S. Border Patrol agents--the first increase 
since 2011.
  The omnibus also included $60 million to hire 125 CBP officers and 
$70 million for nonintrusive inspection technology to detect narcotics 
and firearms at ports of entry.
  In October of 2023, the Biden administration sent Congress a 
supplemental funding request, which included an additional $13.6 
billion for border security.
  Yet House Republicans refuse to schedule a vote on this funding 
request, which would provide the Biden administration the resources it 
needs to secure the border and provide additional support for 
communities receiving migrants.
  More specifically, this supplemental funding would pay for the 
following:
  an additional 1,300 Border Patrol agents;
  375 immigration judges and 1,600 asylum officers to speed up 
processing of asylum claims;
  1,000 CBP officers with a focus on countering fentanyl;
  new detection technology for ports of entry;
  additional investigative capabilities to combat fentanyl trafficking; 
and
  $1.4 billion more in grants to help communities receiving migrants, 
among other investments.
  Democrats have put forward good faith bipartisan solutions to 
actually secure the border by expanding lawful pathways to relieve 
pressure on the border and adequately fund government agencies.
  By forcing a vote on a meaningless resolution filled with empty 
rhetoric, Republicans are showing they have no real solutions to 
address the border. Members should not take the bait.
  In sum, H. Res. 969, the resolution providing for debate on these 
above stated bills (H.R. 69l4, H.R. 69l8, and H. Res. 957), is a 
pitiful attempt to continue the politicization of our government's 
ability to function and to dismantle rights and protections currently 
in place for the Americans across the country.
  All a vote would do is put every Republican who supports it on record 
pushing this extreme agenda.
  This is not what Congress should be focused on. Democrats and 
President Biden will stay focused on putting people over politics and 
keeping our government funded and functioning for the American people.

[[Page H164]]

  As such, I ask my colleagues to vote no on this shameful resolution 
providing for debate on these highly politicized and dangerous bills.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Scanlon is as follows:

   An amendment to H. Res. 969 offered by Ms. Scanlon of Pennsylvania

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (H.R. 12) to protect a person's ability to determine 
     whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a 
     health care provider's ability to provide abortion services. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
     any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 12.

  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on adoption of the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________