[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.
____________________