[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 10 (Thursday, January 18, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H201-H210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        SUPPORTING PREGNANT AND PARENTING WOMEN AND FAMILIES ACT

  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 969, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 6918) to prohibit the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services from restricting funding for pregnancy centers, and ask 
for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). Pursuant to House Resolution 969, 
in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Ways and Means printed in the bill, an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 
Print 118-20 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 6918

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Supporting Pregnant and 
     Parenting Women and Families Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PREGNANCY 
                   CENTERS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     may not finalize, implement, or enforce, with respect to 
     expenditures for any pregnancy center, the modification to 
     section 263.11 of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, as 
     described in the proposed regulation set forth beginning on 
     page 67697 of volume 88 of the Federal Register, or any 
     substantially similar regulatory action.
       (b) Definition of Pregnancy Center.--In subsection (a), the 
     term ``pregnancy center'' means any organization, such as a 
     pregnancy resource center, pregnancy help center or 
     organization, or pregnancy medical center, that--

[[Page H202]]

       (1) supports protecting the life of the mother and the 
     unborn child; and
       (2) offers resources and services to mothers, fathers, and 
     families, including but not limited to relationship 
     counseling, prenatal and pregnancy education, pregnancy 
     testing, diapers, baby clothes, or material supports.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Sanchez) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, right after the Dobbs Supreme Court decision, nearly 100 
pregnancy resource centers, pro-life organizations, and churches were 
smashed, ransacked, vandalized, graffitied, and even firebombed. While 
the violence has subsided, pregnancy resource centers around the 
country are still under attack, this time by the Biden administration.
  Last year, the Biden administration proposed a rule at the Department 
of Health and Human Services that blocks States from funding pregnancy 
resource centers through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
block grant program.
  These centers exist to provide care and support for pregnant women 
looking for an alternative to abortion. Mothers can receive help for 
themselves and the health of their unborn child, including everything 
from diapers and prenatal vitamins to transportation and parenting 
classes.
  The Biden administration's proposed rule has the potential to impact 
over 2,700 such centers around the country that in 2019 alone provided 
medical and material support to over 2 million women and families.
  Nothing in the bipartisan law that created TANF gives the Biden 
administration the authority to unfairly target pregnancy resource 
centers. In fact, it prohibits the government from restricting TANF 
funds, yet that is exactly what the Biden administration is trying to 
do.
  This funding is critical to keeping the doors open and providing care 
for women seeking help. For example, in my home State of Missouri, TANF 
provides $3 of every $4 the State provides to pregnancy resource 
centers, where expectant moms can get everything from diapers and food 
to transportation, parenting skills classes, and prenatal care. These 
are services that every single expectant mother needs for a healthy 
pregnancy, and pregnancy resource centers have stepped in to fill these 
basic needs.
  The hypocrisy on the part of the Biden administration could not be 
more clear. They claim to support a woman's right to choose her own 
healthcare while at the same time the President is making it harder for 
moms to choose life for their unborn child so his administration can 
funnel even more resources to organizations like Planned Parenthood. If 
this rule takes effect, pregnant women in America will have fewer 
healthcare options and less access to care.
  As tomorrow's March for Life will remind us all, the rights of 
mothers and the unborn must be protected.
  I thank Representative Fischbach for introducing this bill that would 
end the Biden administration's misguided rule targeting pregnancy 
resource centers and for her unwavering support of women and the 
unborn. I also thank Representatives Tenney and Chris Smith for 
cosponsoring the bill and for their leadership on this issue. Each one 
has been a tireless fighter to advance the right to life for decades.
  I hope that each one of my colleagues will support this legislation, 
stand up for mothers, and protect the right to life.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today, the majority is pushing yet another extreme anti-
choice bill just in time for the big antiwoman rally in Washington this 
weekend.
  Rather than helping hardworking American families, Republicans are 
working to divert Federal funds from needy children in order to serve 
their own extremist agenda that is out of step with the majority of 
Americans.
  Republicans are attempting to funnel more Federal funds into 
dangerous anti-abortion facilities, the so-called pregnancy centers. 
The other side doesn't even dispute that these centers have a specific 
agenda: to do everything they can within their power to coerce women 
into doing what the center thinks is best for the women, not what is in 
the best interest of the mother.
  These so-called crisis pregnancy centers provide deceptive and 
inaccurate information to pregnant women.
  The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program is intended to 
help low-income women and families, not to reduce abortions. This 
funding was not intended to bankroll deceptive anti-abortion centers 
that misrepresent themselves as healthcare facilities. These facilities 
often delay access to care, and they use emotional manipulation to 
divert access to care from licensed medical professionals.
  The American Medical Association, the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and even the National Institutes of 
Health have all issued reports citing numerous ethical and medical 
concerns with these so-called centers.
  These facilities are unregulated. They have no legal obligation to 
provide pregnant people with accurate information. They are not subject 
to HIPAA protections, nor are they required by law to maintain client 
confidentiality. In many cases, they don't even have licensed medical 
professionals on staff.
  One woman who sought out care at a Florida women's health center in 
Jacksonville was told that having an abortion would cause breast 
cancer. This is patently false. Another was advised to relax at the 
beach after being incorrectly informed she was carrying an ectopic 
pregnancy.

  These facilities are unsafe. Multiple physician organizations have 
stated that they are unethical. The bottom line is that anti-abortion 
clinics should not receive Federal dollars to continue spreading false 
information to low-income, often minority, women seeking comprehensive, 
nonjudgmental fact- and science-based reproductive healthcare.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), who is the sponsor of this 
legislation.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair for the opportunity to 
say a few words.
  Mr. Speaker, this administration and my colleagues on the left claim 
that they want to give pregnant women every option. If that were true, 
then they would have no problem with this bill.
  The fact is the left is only interested in funding avenues that 
encourage women to have abortions. This line of thinking belittles the 
abilities of women to make informed decisions across the country.
  Unfortunately for women everywhere, the left is shouting lies and 
inaccuracies at the top of their lungs, calling pregnancy centers a 
scam. These people clearly have not been to a pregnancy center. I have 
been to many.
  The fact is pregnancy centers empower women. Take, for example, 
Kristen in Louisiana. She thought her pregnancy was the end of the 
world. She contacted her local pregnancy center, sharing her concerns 
about single parenting, including physical, emotional, and financial 
concerns. She was so relieved to work with a team that was 
``confidential and nonjudgmental every step of the way.'' They informed 
her of all the resources available to her, including free Lamaze and 
parenting classes and even scholarships.
  She would never have known about all of these resources available to 
her had she not gone to a pregnancy center

[[Page H203]]

that was committed to empowering her with the knowledge, information, 
and support she needed to feel confident in choosing life.
  Today, nobody could imagine their lives without Kristen's daughter. 
Since working with her local pregnancy center, she has gotten married. 
Her husband adopted her daughter, and the two went on to have more 
children together. Kristen graduated college, got her master's degree, 
is a professor, and is applying to the Ph.D. programs.
  Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, conservatives are here for unborn 
babies and their mothers. I introduced the Supporting Pregnant and 
Parenting Women and Families Act to ensure the administration does not 
block funding for pregnancy care centers across the country like the 
one that helped Kristen. They are providing support and empowering 
women to raise their families.

                              {time}  1230

  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will point out that one of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle mentioned some violence, and I will talk about the violence that 
happens at abortion provider clinics.
  They have been compiling statistics on instances of violence and 
disruption against abortion providers for more than 40 years, and there 
is definite uptick in the amount of clinic invasions, obstructions, 
blockades, targeted mail, and harassing phone calls.
  In recent years, we have seen incidents of violence with devastating 
impacts. For example, in November 2015, three people were murdered and 
nine injured when Robert Dear brought an assault-style rifle to a 
Planned Parenthood healthcare center in Colorado Springs and opened 
fire.
  A gunman also attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Knoxville, 
Tennessee, in the early hours of January 22, 2021. In December 2021, 
the same clinic was burned to the ground by arsonists.
  If you want to talk about incidents of violence, let's talk about the 
onslaught of violent attacks that abortion providers have had to deal 
with for over the past 40 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Chu), my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee and 
a champion for women's rights.
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6918, the 
deceptively named Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families 
Act.
  This bill has a simple but negative purpose: It would divert 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families dollars that successfully keep 
needy children and families from poverty to anti-abortion centers.
  These so-called crisis pregnancy centers masquerade as healthcare 
facilities, even going so far as to have staff dress in scrubs and 
white coats to mimic medical professionals.
  Let's be clear: They are organizations attempting to strong-arm, 
manipulate, and coerce pregnant people seeking abortion care into 
carrying pregnancies to full term, and this is to the great 
disadvantage of women in need.
  These anti-abortion centers are not actual medical facilities, so 
they are not covered by the privacy and security rules of HIPAA. With 
little or no consequence, staff at these facilities can lie to patients 
and share their personal information with anti-abortion extremists in 
order to survey, harass, pressure, or prosecute those seeking abortion 
care.
  The lies these centers tell can have profound impacts on a patient's 
health. In Iowa, an OB/GYN has seen patients who were told at these 
centers that using contraceptives was the same as having an abortion.
  In Massachusetts, an unqualified staff member at an anti-abortion 
center failed to diagnose a woman's ectopic pregnancy. That woman later 
required emergency surgery. Worst of all, there are no consequences to 
these centers for this.
  A recent study of 607 anti-abortion centers across nine States found 
that they ``promoted patently false and/or biased medical claims about 
pregnancy, abortion, contraception, and reproductive healthcare 
providers.'' Fewer than half of these centers reported having a 
licensed medical professional on staff.
  Unfortunately for the American people, spreading misinformation about 
abortion and ultimately implementing a national ban on abortion seems 
to be unifying objectives for Republicans here in Congress.
  During our markup last week, Democrats offered a series of amendments 
to allow funding to these centers if they could prove that they provide 
medically accurate information, not harm women's health, and did not 
mislead or coerce women into visiting their centers.
  Committee Republicans rejected all of those amendments, making it 
clear that their purpose is coercive propaganda, not support for 
pregnant women.
  If Republicans want to support expecting new parents, House Democrats 
would welcome their backing of a fully expanded child tax credit, 
universal paid family and medical leave, and affordable childcare.
  However, instead of considering these measures or even doing the 
basic business of keeping the government open, we are debating a bill 
going nowhere in the Senate and intended, instead, to score political 
points with anti-abortion groups gathering in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 6918.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).
  Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
legislation introduced by my good friend from Minnesota, a strong voice 
for the voiceless, Mrs. Fischbach.
  The Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Families Act blocks a 
disastrous rule proposed by the Biden administration which would strip 
funding from pregnancy resource centers.
  As we heard in last week's markup, those who oppose this bill have 
even admitted that they are pro-life starting only 2 seconds after you 
are born.
  Ironically, so many on the other side of the aisle, most of whom 
can't even define what a woman is, not only share in this delusion, but 
also claim to be the party of women's rights.
  Now, I am sorry. We just heard that these centers are masquerading as 
women's healthcare facilities. You want to talk about masquerading as 
providing women's healthcare? Let's look at their pro-abortion 
facilities. They are not providing healthcare. Mr. Speaker, 97 to 98 
percent of the services that they provide are abortions, not healthcare 
services.
  My colleagues on the left claim that it is somehow worse for a mother 
to have access to the vital services offered by pregnancy resource 
centers. In fact, the gentlewoman from California defined them as 
extremists.
  Let's explore the services that these pregnancy centers offer that my 
colleagues find so offensive and so extreme.

  Let's see. How does it hurt for a young family to have access to free 
prenatal vitamins, formula, and diapers? How about free maternity and 
baby clothing? How about educational classes on unplanned pregnancy, 
childbirth, parenting, and adoption information? How about free life 
skills training and help with housing? How extreme? How offensive?
  As is clear by the nearly 1 million women assisted by pregnancy 
resource centers in 2022, they provide an extraordinary service to 
women and families across the country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds 
to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Speaker, Texas is home to 200 pregnancy resource 
centers, and I will not stand by as the Biden administration attempts 
to take away choice from pregnant women, nor will I stand by and allow 
them to block funding for the vital programs offered by these pregnancy 
centers.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle that unlike these so-called pregnancy centers, Planned 
Parenthood actually gives women factually and scientifically accurate 
information and the full range of choices, while the pregnancy centers 
have a clear agenda and only one point of view.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms.

[[Page H204]]

Moore), a champion for women everywhere.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
this bill that diverts funds from the welfare program and the TANF 
program to these crisis pregnancy centers.
  Before I get into my argument, let me say how I think it is wonderful 
that these centers provide clothing, formula, diapers, and comfort to a 
woman who is planning to have a child and they are able to provide 
these resources.
  However, I do agree with my colleagues that have argued that these 
so-called crisis pregnancy centers don't meet the mark with regard to 
meeting a woman who is actually having a crisis pregnancy.
  When a woman is having a crisis pregnancy and presents herself, she 
is having a crisis because she has mental health issues, some social 
problems, she may have health problems, maybe she is 10 years old and 
finds herself pregnant as a result of incest. Maybe--and I have known 
cases like this--she has found herself pregnant and is now needing 
treatment for cancer and wondering what to do because she is going to 
have to have chemo and radiation and finds herself pregnant.
  The problem with these crisis pregnancy centers is that they only 
have one agenda, and that is to make sure you stay pregnant. They are 
going to continue to ignore the facts of your particular case which 
makes it a crisis pregnancy for you.
  I will tell you that I have great credibility on this issue. I am a 
mother. I am a grandmother of three granddaughters. I am a great-
grandmother of three great-granddaughters. I have held women's hands 
when they have pushed and given birth, and I have held their hands when 
they needed an abortion because of reasons that are none of our 
business around here.
  I think that if we are going to divert the measly $16.5 billion block 
grant that we have to share all across the country that we should not 
be diverting it to these 2,500 care centers that don't meet the TANF 
goals of helping poor women deal with their poverty beyond 6 weeks 
after giving birth.
  It is fine to help women who are pregnant, but what do you do after 
you have given birth and we have diverted all these funds to places 
like pregnancy resource centers that care only about stopping you from 
having an abortion?
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6918, 
the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act.
  Mr. Speaker, pregnancy centers play a vital role in supporting women 
facing unexpected or unplanned pregnancies. Since the Dobbs ruling, 
pregnancy centers have been under vicious attack by the radical left, 
especially in my home State of Illinois.
  Why? All for simply loving and supporting vulnerable women. There are 
approximately 3,000 pregnancy centers across the Nation, serving nearly 
2 million mothers, fathers, and families completely free of charge.
  In 2019 alone, their services and material assistance totaled over 
$266 million.
  The goal of pregnancy centers is to support the mother and her unborn 
child. However, they also offer many resources and services, including 
relationship counseling, prenatal and pregnancy education, pregnancy 
testing, diapers, and baby clothes, just to name a few.

  Women in crisis situations deserve to be protected and supported, 
period.
  Banning funding to pregnancy centers not only discriminates against 
women but deprives them of the vital care and materials they 
desperately need, including information on the development of the baby 
and an ultrasound.
  As a volunteer and supporter of crisis pregnancy centers in Illinois, 
I have seen firsthand how they minister to women in need. Unlike 
Planned Parenthood, pregnancy centers don't prey upon vulnerable women 
and coerce them into making decisions they will regret for the rest of 
their lives.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Fischbach for leading the way to 
protect the essential work of pregnancy centers, and I look forward to 
the House swiftly passing this bill.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Doggett), my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, this bill is yet another step in the 
Republican crusade to impose a national abortion ban to treat women 
across America the way Texans have been abused already. And this 
drastic, harmful strategy is about so much more than abortion 
healthcare.
  It is about the right to life for expectant mothers. It is about the 
right of a mother to be physically able to deliver a future baby. What 
happened to Texan Kate Cox is so very instructive. A mother herself, 
she was advised that having another child could not be possible if she 
was forced to deliver a fetus that could not live, yet Republicans 
insisted that she do just that. Under the Texas vigilante law, medical 
professionals--indeed, anyone who provides advice about an abortion, 
even for a child who is the victim of rape or incest--there are 
immediate penalties for them.

                              {time}  1245

  As they seek to cut support for Women, Infants, and Children funding, 
House Republicans want to divert tax money to these propaganda centers, 
usually posing as a health center but lacking any medical professional 
staff--public funds to centers designed to fearmonger and intimidate 
vulnerable women.
  While Republicans demand protection of life from the moment of 
conception, they show so little interest in life after delivery. Women 
deserve healthcare protection free from coercion. For every American 
whose freedom is threatened by Republican interference, both patients 
and their doctors, I strongly oppose this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act, which 
will block a Biden administration proposed rule prohibiting States from 
funding pregnancy resource centers which support the lives of both 
mothers and their unborn children.
  Pregnancy resource centers offer compassionate support and care to 
women as they choose to become mothers and bring life into this world. 
Unfortunately, the Biden administration is trying to take away 
resources from facilities that provide women and families with quality 
healthcare services, emotional support, and supplies, like diapers. The 
result is pregnant women having less access to maternal care critical 
to both the health of the mother and unborn child. This is despicable.
  As a pharmacist, I swore an oath to do no harm and to protect the 
sanctity of human life. That means standing up for pregnancy resource 
centers, which in my district provide valuable, life-changing support 
for women and children.
  I encourage any of my colleagues who are unwilling to support these 
facilities to go and visit them. I have, and I saw for myself how the 
work they do is changing lives.
  We value women, we value life, and this bill prioritizes both.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this bill and prevent the 
defunding of these critical health centers.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 6918 
because it is just another attempt by the Republican leadership to 
advance their extremist war on women.
  As we again face another Republican-manufactured shutdown crisis, the 
Republican leadership advances this bill to divert money intended for 
poor children to anti-abortion propaganda and facilities that provide 
deceptive and inaccurate information.
  The House should take immediate action to eliminate child poverty, 
not promote efforts to restrict women's reproductive choices.
  Alarmingly, just one year after the Republican-led expiration of 
Democratic poverty-lowering investments in workers and families, the 
child poverty rate more than doubled, causing the biggest one-year 
increase in poverty we have ever seen.
  If Republicans truly wanted to help pregnant and parenting families, 
they

[[Page H205]]

would fully restore the child tax credit, dramatically increase 
childcare funding to address the childcare crisis, and make it easier 
to get critical services like Medicaid.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his 
tremendous leadership on this and so many other important issues, 
including life issues. I thank Michelle Fischbach for her brave and 
courageous leadership, and our Speaker for making sure that this 
legislation got to the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, at a New Jersey pregnancy resource center dinner, two 
women, through tears of joy, expressed their deep and abiding gratitude 
for the incredible love, respect, and care that persuaded them to 
reverse their decision to abort their babies. They spoke about how 
desperate they were, even hopeless. They spoke of the pressure that 
they felt to abort, until they met the director of the pregnancy 
resource center, who reached out to both of them in a gentle and 
nonjudgmental way.
  They chose life, and thanked God, the director, and the pregnancy 
resource center for helping them to avert the loss of their babies' 
lives.
  Then, two teenaged girls took to the podium and spoke about their 
lives--school, sports, friends--and their reverence for the sanctity of 
all human life. Near the end of their remarks--I didn't see this coming 
nor did many people in the room--they turned toward the director of the 
center and thanked her for being there for their moms through those 
difficult times and said: If you weren't there for them, we would be 
dead. Two wonderful young women talking about how without the pregnancy 
center, they would have been dead.
  There are more than 2,700 pregnancy resource centers throughout the 
United States. Each and every one of them is an oasis of love, 
compassion, empathy, respect, and care for both mothers and their 
precious children.
  Americans agree with the noble work of pregnancy care centers. The 
new Marist national poll, released just yesterday, found that 83 
percent of all Americans, including 75 percent of Democrats, support--I 
say again support--pregnancy resource centers.
  There is a growing number of people throughout this country in this 
great human rights movement who really protect the unborn child and 
their mothers and stand with women and their children. We reject the 
violence of abortion, dismemberment, child beheadings, and abortion 
pills.
  How does the pill work? It literally starves the baby to death. That 
is how they die; they starve to death.
  Congresswoman Michelle Fischbach's legislation prohibits Biden's new 
policy proposal that discriminates against pregnancy resource centers. 
The bill, the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act 
ensures that pregnancy resource centers cannot be excluded or 
restricted from receiving TANF funding as proposed by the rule that is 
being pushed by the President.

  The Biden administration and some Governors and lawmakers continue, 
Mr. Speaker, to smear and misrepresent the noble work of pregnancy 
resource centers. We can't allow that to happen.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Ms. McClellan), my esteemed colleague.
  Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on this dangerous H.R. 6918.
  This legislation is the House Republicans' latest attempt to spread 
inaccurate information while advancing their extreme anti-abortion 
agenda and attacking reproductive freedom.
  This bill would divert TANF funding that is intended to help 
struggling families and children, the very families that face higher 
maternal and infant death rates than some Third World countries. It 
would divert funding to help these families to fund anti-abortion 
crisis pregnancy centers whose sole purpose is to coerce, deceive, and 
manipulate pregnant patients into carrying their pregnancies to term. 
These centers often share biased and medically inaccurate information, 
purposefully misleading patients into believing they can get the 
healthcare they need. Abortion care is healthcare.
  These centers delay care, deny access to qualified medical 
professionals, and that is critically dangerous for pregnant patients 
who need timely healthcare services. These centers are unethical and 
jeopardize patients' well-being, yet extreme House Republicans want the 
Federal Government to support them at the expense of the vulnerable 
children and families, again, who face higher infant mortality rates 
than in many Third World countries.
  This legislation exemplifies Republicans' bad-faith efforts. 
Essential TANF funds should not be used to help these programs instead 
of helping needy families. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Yakym).
  Mr. YAKYM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Supporting 
Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act.
  Mr. Speaker, pregnancy centers provide vital services to expectant 
mothers and new parents at no cost. This includes pregnancy tests, 
ultrasounds, parenting classes, diapers and wipes, formula, and 
outfits.
  When my wife and I had very little money and we were expecting our 
first child, we turned to one such pregnancy center for an ultrasound. 
Due to my personal experience with that pregnancy center, I find the 
other side of the aisle's characterization of these pregnancy centers 
to be nothing short of insulting.
  The Biden administration is trying to circumvent Congress and take 
away this critical lifeline from low-income women by stopping States 
from using Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, funds for 
pregnancy centers. Instead of securing our border, the Biden 
administration is trying to take away diapers and parenting classes 
from low-income women.
  The Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act would 
stop this harmful policy in its tracks and ensure pregnancy centers 
continue to provide valuable services to low-income pregnant women and 
new parents.
  I thank my colleague, Mrs. Fischbach, for introducing this important 
bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle are insulted by the issues that we are raising because I 
have a brief here in front of me from the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists which talks about the fact that these 
pregnancy crisis centers use digital marketing tactics to target people 
seeking information about abortion care. According to their studies, 71 
percent of these centers use deceptive means, such as spreading 
thoroughly debunked misinformation, and 38 percent of them do not 
clearly state on their home page that they don't provide abortion care.
  If you are mad at us for raising these points, talk to the College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, because they have done an in-depth, 
comprehensive study to talk about the repeated misinformation that 
these centers give out to women who are in crisis. The deceptive 
information that they give to them puts these women's lives at risk. If 
you are so pro-life, why do you not care about the life of the mother?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Lois Frankel).
  Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my, my, my, Republicans are 
at it again, trying every which way to obstruct legal access to 
abortion, preventing women from the freedom of making their own choice 
of when or whether to start or grow a family.
  This time, Republicans want to fund fake clinics run by anti-abortion 
activists who deceptively provide women with misleading information 
with one purpose: to scare, disgrace, or pressure them from getting an 
abortion.
  Shamefully, in order to bankroll these fake centers, this Republican 
bill grabs funding from a program designed to assist needy pregnant 
women and children get back on their feet.
  Overwhelmingly, Americans believe that women should make their own 
personal healthcare decisions without interference by politicians.

[[Page H206]]

  This proposed legislation is dangerous hypocrisy on steroids and not 
worthy of support.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Democrats and the Biden administration are purposely targeting and 
misrepresenting pregnancy centers in their proposed rule and seeking to 
intimidate States that fund them.
  Pregnancy resource centers play a vital role to both mothers and 
fathers, empowering them in their decision to choose life for their 
baby, by providing realistic alternatives in stark contrast to 
organizations exclusively focused on abortion.
  There is no deceit underlying pregnancy centers. They are another 
option for women who are looking for an alternative to abortion. It is 
disgraceful that Democrats mischaracterize these organizations in an 
effort to limit a woman's choice to raise her child.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Self).

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. SELF. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this bill.
  Listening to my colleagues across the aisle talk about pregnancy 
centers is astounding. They appear to have never set foot in one and 
have fallen for the abortion industry's lies, hook, line, and sinker.
  I served on the board of a pregnancy center in my area for many 
years. During my service, we even contracted for a mobile sonogram to 
go to help the ladies who were in disadvantaged areas and lacked 
transportation to get to the pregnancy center.
  The sonogram is the greatest tool in use against the death culture. 
In Plano, Texas, if you find yourself unexpectedly pregnant without a 
support network, feeling lost and anxious, you can go to a number of 
local pregnancy centers. There, you will be met by kind, caring, 
compassionate staff, both volunteer nurses and medical doctors. They 
offer pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, counseling, classes, and testing, 
all at no cost. There are nearly 3,000 of these centers around the 
Nation, mainly run by local volunteers simply because they want to 
help.
  In 2021, the pregnancy centers served almost 1 million women and 
their babies, and this number does not even include the fathers, who 
are part of this equation.
  Yet, in spite of all this good, the administration has decided to 
punish pregnancy centers. Why? Because they do not perform abortions.
  Let that sink in. Your tax dollars fund the death culture but not the 
life culture. Pregnancy centers give out free diapers, parenting 
classes, and ultrasounds, and their volunteers lend a helping hand to 
moms across America who decide to keep their unborn person. Because 
these centers will not bend the knee to the President's radical 
abortion agenda, they are going to be punished.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill and 
to stand with pregnant moms and their babies.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I would just love to point out to anybody 
who cares for real facts a 2006 congressional report and investigation 
that found false and misleading health information provided by 
federally funded pregnancy resource centers. That will give you an 
accurate picture of just what goes on behind those doors.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon 
(Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Sanchez for 
yielding and for her leadership on this important issue.
  I rise today in opposition to the so-called Supporting Pregnant and 
Parenting Women and Families Act, which would prevent the Department of 
Health and Human Services from restricting funds to crisis pregnancy 
centers.
  We know, as we have heard, and is included in the report that 
Representative Sanchez just mentioned, that crisis pregnancy centers 
prey on people at a very vulnerable time. They often spread 
misinformation to further what is clearly an anti-choice agenda. They 
routinely use deceptive advertising to get people into the doors, and 
then they mislead them about the services they provide.
  In fact, a center in Ohio was caught making outlandish assertions, 
including that ``condoms were only 50 percent effective, the spread of 
STDs could only be prevented if people followed `God's plan' of 
avoiding sex before marriage, and that if a woman who has an STD gets 
an abortion, `your STDs travel up your cervix into your organs and 
could kill you.' ''
  This deception is outrageous, dangerous, and unconscionable, which is 
why I have introduced the Stop Antiabortion Disinformation Act, H.R. 
2736, to direct the Federal Trade Commission to issue rules prohibiting 
unfair or deceptive advertising of abortion services.
  This, Mr. Speaker, will really make a difference because anyone 
seeking reproductive care should have access to a real healthcare 
provider that will provide them with comprehensive and accurate medical 
information.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Scott Franklin of Florida). The time of 
the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, anyone seeking reproductive care should 
have access to a real healthcare provider that will provide them with 
real, comprehensive, and accurate medical information. That is not what 
they get at pregnancy resource centers. I urge my colleagues to reject 
this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube).
  Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6918, the 
Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act, introduced by 
Congresswoman Fischbach, and I thank her for introducing this important 
bill to push back against the Biden administration's shocking 
demonization of pregnancy resource centers.
  These centers provide loving care and resources for pregnant women 
and mothers of newborns who face trying times.
  Pregnancy resource centers provide a wide array of services, 
including free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, parenting and prenatal 
education, and lactation consultations. They give out free diapers, 
formula, and baby clothes for mothers of newborns.
  In my district, the Sarasota Medical Pregnancy Center does tremendous 
work as a lifeline for pregnant women in need. They lovingly care for 
these women who face challenging circumstances. There are trained 
medical professionals present who perform free ultrasounds and provide 
the care these women want and need.
  Unfortunately, Democrats continually seek to delegitimize these vital 
organizations simply because they provide an alternative to abortion.
  After the Dobbs decision was released, nearly 100 pregnancy crisis 
centers, including 4 in my home State of Florida, were attacked and 
vandalized by leftwing radical groups. Despite repeated pleas from 
Members of Congress, our Department of Justice largely refused to 
actively investigate this organized criminal activity.

  Now, the Biden administration is singling out pregnancy crisis 
centers to exclude them from eligibility under the TANF program, all 
because these centers encourage women to have their babies.
  It was a deliberate act by the Biden administration to appease 
radical pro-abortion activists by attacking pregnancy centers that 
provide so much to pregnant women.
  This bill simply ensures that the Biden administration cannot exclude 
these centers from TANF eligibility.
  Mr. Speaker, I am honored to support pregnancy resource centers, and 
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important 
legislation.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding. I rise to oppose yet another extreme Republican assault on 
families and reproductive freedoms.
  This thinly veiled attack on abortion rights would let States divert 
critical Federal funds meant for struggling families with children into 
shady anti-choice groups.
  These so-called crisis pregnancy centers claim to help women, but 
they are unregulated, unlicensed, and not even required to have medical 
professionals. They say whatever they want, and they

[[Page H207]]

offer inaccurate, biased information meant to scare women and limit 
their choices.
  Worse, this bill diverts vital TANF funds from needy children and 
steers it to dangerous anti-choice outfits that will help Republicans 
secure their extreme national abortion ban.
  With partial government funding about to run out, why do Republicans 
waste our time on these shameful stunts?
  I want to be clear: This deceptive bill does not help pregnant women. 
It simply funds groups that lie to them.
  As a woman and mother of three young adult children, I ask my 
Republican colleagues to truly help women and families and stop 
deceiving and defunding them.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this deceptive bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, last year, Missouri provided $6.3 
million in TANF funding to pregnancy resource centers. This funding is 
provided for mothers and fathers for nonmedical support, such as baby 
clothes and formula, and support for families until the age of 1.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Missouri 
Department of Social Services to the Administration for Children and 
Families opposing any restrictions on using TANF for these critical 
services.

                                            Missouri Department of


                                              Social Services,

                                                November 30, 2023.
     Re Strengthening Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
         (TANF) as a Safety Net and Work Program (RIN 0970-AC99).

     Administration for Children and Families,
     Office of Family Assistance,
     Washington, DC.
       To Whom it May Concern: The Missouri Department of Social 
     Services (DSS) has reviewed in detail the Notice of Public 
     Rulemaking (NPRM), RIN 0970-AC99, issued by the 
     Administration for Children and Families (ACF) on October 2, 
     2023. Below, please find DSS' comments on the proposed rule. 
     DSS believes the proposed rule should be modified 
     significantly before being enacted. Our comments are in three 
     main areas:
       Allowability of youth services designed to break the cycle 
     of poverty,
       Allowability of programs that support pregnant women and 
     positive outcomes for their children, and
       Allowability of using third party expenditures to meet TANF 
     MOE requirements.
       In addition, we emphasize the importance of a phased 
     implementation to allow states time to adjust to the final 
     rule, regardless of any revisions made subsequent to the 
     issuance of the NPRM.
       We elaborate on these points separately below.


Allow a broader range of youth services designed to break the cycle of 
                                poverty

       One of the hallmarks of the TANF program is that it allowed 
     flexibility for states to best serve the populations in their 
     states. The 1999 TANF Final Rule, 64 FR 17720 et seq. (April 
     12, 1999), drives home this point repeatedly in its preamble:
       ``The law gives States, and federally recognized Indian 
     tribes, the authority to use Federal welfare funds `in any 
     manner that is reasonably calculated to accomplish the 
     purpose' of the new program. It provides them broad 
     flexibility to set eligibility rules and decide what benefits 
     are most appropriate. It also enables States to implement 
     their new programs without getting the `approval' of the 
     Federal government. In short, it offers States and Tribes an 
     opportunity to try new, far-reaching changes that can respond 
     more effectively to the needs of families within their own 
     unique environments.''
       States have used this flexibility to fund a wide range of 
     programs, including programs focused on serving youth in 
     afterschool settings. The NPRM suggests that these programs, 
     which provide a valuable social support and help reduce 
     school dropout and teen pregnancy rates, would no longer be 
     allowable except to the extent that ``pregnancy prevention 
     programming is a part of an ongoing program.'' States did not 
     make this connection between after-school programs and TANF 
     Purpose 3 on their own. ACF issued guidance at the outset of 
     the TANF program that explicitly made the connection between 
     youth programs and TANF purpose 3:
       ``A State may use its TANF or MOE funds for services and 
     benefits that directly lead to (or can be expected to lead 
     to) the accomplishment of one of these four purposes. For 
     example, it could fund special initiatives to improve the 
     motivation, performance, and self-esteem of youth (e.g., 
     activities like those included in the HHS Girl Power! 
     Campaign or sponsored by the Boys and Girls Clubs) because 
     such initiatives would be expected to reduce school-dropout 
     and teen pregnancy rates.''
       In addition to after-school programs, Missouri's TANF 
     expenditures have supported in-school initiatives that 
     support positive youth outcomes. For example, the Jobs for 
     America's Graduates (JAG) program gives students in selected 
     at-risk areas the tools needed to make a successful 
     transition to post-secondary education and meaningful 
     employment with self-sustaining wages to decrease the need 
     for government assistance.
       The proposed rule would not only impact general youth 
     programs, but also a state's ability to provide employment 
     services to teens and older youth who are not yet parents. 
     ACF-IM-2012-01 speaks to the importance of programming that 
     supports youth employment and reminds states that ``. . . a 
     jurisdiction may use TANF and/or MOE funds to serve youth up 
     through the age of 24 in a subsidized employment program 
     under TANF statutory purpose one,'' and that TANF funds may 
     be used whether or not the youth resides in the home of a 
     parent or relative. Furthermore, the same memorandum speaks 
     to other allowable activities that support youth in summer 
     jobs programs, including education and training, supportive 
     services, transportation for employed persons for the purpose 
     of attending work or training, counseling and employment 
     related services, and incentive payments that reward the 
     participant for achieving a predetermined milestone.
       Similarly, the NPRM calls into question the funding of 
     college scholarships for childless older youth as an 
     allowable TANF expenditure. Studies have indicated that 
     higher educational attainment typically translates into a 
     reduced likelihood of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and increases 
     the chances the individual will become a supportive member of 
     a two-parent household. These facts support both TANF 
     Purposes three and four. However, interpretations of this 
     research are subjective, and the uncertainty regarding ACF's 
     acceptance of supporting evidence places a significant risk 
     on states like Missouri that utilize TANF funds for 
     scholarships. At  a minimum, we contend these expenditures 
     should be allowable for youth and young adults with 
     incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.
       After 25 years of guidance that reinforces that after-
     school and other programs targeting youth and young adults 
     meet a TANF Purpose, the sudden shift to render these 
     programs unallowable is illogical and short sighted. The TANF 
     program was created to help states fund programs that break 
     the cycle of poverty, and serving youth is one of the proven 
     ways of doing so.
       Missouri strongly encourages ACF to reconsider the proposed 
     rule and continue to allow states to invest in their youth, 
     which in turn is an investment in the future.


 Allow programs that support pregnant women and positive outcomes for 
                             their children

       The NPRM states that--
       ``Programs that only or primarily provide pregnancy 
     counseling to women only after they become pregnant likely do 
     not meet the reasonable person standard because the 
     connection to preventing and reducing out-of-wedlock 
     pregnancies is tenuous or non-existent, and therefore do not 
     accomplish purpose three.''
       Missouri funds programs for pregnant women that 1) set up 
     the unborn/newborn child for success by providing a range of 
     services and supports; and 2) offer resources to the mother 
     that decrease the chances of future unwanted pregnancies. 
     Examples of benefits and services provided through these 
     comprehensive programs include but are not limited to food, 
     clothing and supplies related to pregnancy, newborn care and 
     parenting, housing and utilities, job training and placement, 
     prenatal care and ultrasound services, medical and mental 
     health care, transportation, establishing and promoting 
     responsible paternity, and parenting skills classes.
       We contend that these services are allowable under multiple 
     TANF purposes. And we understand that states will have the 
     opportunity to provide research or programmatic evidence that 
     supports these programs' link to a TANF purpose/s. However, 
     these judgements are subjective, and we are concerned that 
     decisions of TANF allowability after funds have been expended 
     place undue risk on state budgets and the comprehensive 
     nature of the programs. Accordingly, programs that support 
     pregnant women and positive outcomes for their children 
     should be clearly allowable and not subject to the reasonable 
     person test.


  Consider allowing third party MOE to count in certain circumstances

       The Uniform administrative requirements that govern TANF 
     explicitly allow third-party spending to count toward a 
     state's Maintenance of Effort spending, and this was codified 
     in the TANF regulations as part of the 2008 Final Rule for 
     the Deficit Reduction Act. The NPRM would continue to allow 
     third party spending from public entities to count as MOE but 
     would prohibit the use of nonprofit spending. This change 
     would severely impact Missouri, and we urge ACF to 
     reconsider.
       Missouri has a unique set up with the non-profit agencies 
     that provide MOE toward the state's TANF claim in that the 
     same agencies also receive TANF block grant funding. Missouri 
     has established as matching requirement, whereby the TANF 
     funds received are contingent on the non-profits also 
     providing documented MOE spending. This cost-sharing 
     responsibility has created high quality public-private 
     partnerships, and the state's investment of TANF funds has 
     allowed the non-profits to expand services to low-income 
     families.
       Missouri urges ACF to consider allowing third party MOE 
     from non-profit agencies if those dollars are part of a 
     matching requirement for receiving TANF funds. In this way, 
     the non-profit community will be invested in

[[Page H208]]

     helping further the purposes of TANF alongside the state.


 Consider slowing down implementation to allow states to adjust to new 
                                 rules

       The NPRM includes several sweeping changes that will have a 
     dramatic impact on how states operate their TANF program. 
     Further it suggests that the rules could be in effect as soon 
     as October 2024, if the rules are enacted in the current 
     fiscal year. This is simply too fast, States are already in 
     the budgeting process for next year, and to have such 
     significant changes in what is allowable for TANF and TANF 
     MOE would be detrimental to states.
       States need time to educate legislators on the changes in 
     what programs can and cannot be funded with TANF; in some 
     cases, they need to unlearn rules that have been in place 
     since the inception of TANF. Furthermore, states need time to 
     adjust contracts and spending plans.
       Previous proposed changes to the TANF program that were 
     introduced in Congress would have included a phased-in 
     approach to changes. Missouri urges ACF to consider something 
     similar, with the changes in allowability and third-party MOE 
     going into effect over the course of three to five years. For 
     example, ACF could allow states that currently claim third 
     party MOE to establish a baseline, then allow them to claim 
     75 percent 50 percent, and 25 percent of that amount over the 
     next three years. This would allow states to adjust spending 
     over the course of several years, rather than leaving states 
     at risk of missing MOE requirements and losing federal TANF 
     dollars through a penalty process.
       The proposed rules would be the most sweeping change to the 
     TANF program since its inception in 1996. To have these 
     changes all take place at the same time and with very little 
     lead time creates an undue burden on the states. Missouri DSS 
     strongly encourages ACF to reconsider these changes.
       Our partners and providers have expressed many of the same 
     concerns we have noted above. Please see the attached twenty-
     two (22) letters from stakeholders across the state who would 
     be impacted by these changes.
       We appreciate your consideration of the submitted comments 
     and suggestions and look forward to working together to 
     strengthen TANF and to strengthen and support the families 
     that we serve.
           Sincerely,
                                                Robert J. Knodell,
                                                         Director.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, at least four other States--
Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania--provide TANF funding to 
pregnancy resource centers, which meets the TANF purposes of assisting 
needy families and reducing dependence on government.
  As Missouri's comment letter states, it is imperative that we protect 
this funding and the vital services pregnancy resource centers provide 
for our families and communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Kansas (Ms. Davids).
  Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, when Roe v. Wade was overturned, 
people were scared. They feared for the future of their rights and 
ability to make deeply personal decisions about their own bodies. I 
have heard from many people who are concerned that their children and 
grandchildren might grow up with less rights than they had.
  In August 2022, Kansans made their voices overwhelmingly clear: 
Politics and politicians have no place in the middle of healthcare 
decisions. Those decisions are between a person and their doctor alone.
  However, despite the resounding messages delivered by Kansans and 
other States, extremists persist in their relentless effort to deprive 
Americans of their fundamental right to choose.
  Sadly, that is where we find ourselves today, where certain Members 
of this body are attempting to push legislation that would directly 
limit access to the full range of reproductive care.
  This bill blatantly misleads the American people, diverting funds 
meant for food, rent, and childcare to certain harmful facilities that 
purposely provide disinformation to people seeking access to care. I 
won't stand for it, and neither will Kansans.
  We should be expanding access to healthcare, including reproductive 
healthcare, rather than masking misinformation behind dishonest 
policies that actually endanger a person's health. Even further, we 
should be upfront with the American people. Isn't that the bare 
minimum?
  Let me be clear: The right to choose is fundamental. Working to strip 
that right should never be a priority, especially days before a 
possible government shutdown that would have devastating impacts on 
hardworking families.
  Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to 
stand with me in delivering a powerful message, one that the American 
people absolutely need to hear: Your ability to decide what is best for 
you, your body, your family, and your future is inherently your choice, 
now and always.
  For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to 
recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I 
would have offered the motion with an important amendment that would 
ensure that taxpayer dollars cannot be allocated to pregnancy centers 
that provide medically inaccurate information and put the health of a 
woman at risk.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the 
text of this amendment and hope that my colleagues will join me in 
voting ``yes'' on this motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, tens of thousands of 
pro-life Americans will converge on The National Mall for the March for 
Life on the anniversary of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, 
which legalized abortion in all 50 States.
  Today's legislation will ensure that expectant mothers will have 
access to alternatives to abortion and choose the life-affirming 
services provided at pregnancy resource centers.
  I include in the Record letters of support from the National Right to 
Life Committee and CatholicVote and a statement of support from Susan 
B. Anthony Pro-Life America.


                                       National Right to Life,

                                 Alexandria, VA, January 17, 2024.
     Re Scorecard Advisory, H.R. 69 1 8, the Supporting Pregnant 
         and Parenting Women and Families Act

       The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) urges you to 
     support H.R. 6918, the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting 
     Women and Families Act. NRLC intends to include the roll call 
     on H.R. 6918 in its scorecard of key pro-life votes of the 
     118th Congress.
       This legislation would ensure that pregnancy centers are 
     eligible for state-directed federal funds through the 
     Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. 
     Pregnancy centers serve millions of clients annually and 
     offer hope and support for women and their unborn children. 
     In a post-Roe America, it is more important now than ever 
     that pregnancy centers can effectively support mothers and 
     their babies.
       The Biden Administration is currently proposing a rule to 
     restrict federal funds from going to pregnancy centers in a 
     number of states that direct funds to them through the TANF 
     program. H.R. 6918 would prohibit HHS from finalizing, 
     implementing, or enforcing this or any similar rulemaking 
     that would restrict use of TANF for pregnancy centers.
       National Right to Life and several affected states 
     submitted official comments in opposition to the proposed 
     Biden rule, ``Strengthening Temporary Assistance for Needy 
     Families (TANF) as a Safety Net and Work Program,'' published 
     on October 2, 2023 (the ``Proposed Rule''). The Proposed 
     Rule, among other things, targets pregnancy resource centers 
     by threatening to strip them of millions of dollars of 
     funding claiming, without evidence, that pregnancy centers do 
     not meet TANF criteria. This is funding that is currently 
     being used to compassionately help women and their unborn 
     babies.
       Nearly 3,000 pregnancy centers serve about 2 million 
     clients annually, saving local communities millions of 
     dollars by providing services at little to no cost. Many 
     pregnancy centers provide limited obstetrical ultrasounds 
     under a local doctor's oversight as well as parenting 
     classes. In addition, nearly all centers provide material 
     assistance such as diapers, cribs, and car seats as well as 
     practical help such as connecting a mother in need to local 
     resources that can help her with housing or transportation.
       For the above reasons, the National Right to Life Committee 
     urges you to support H.R. 6918. NRLC intends to include the 
     roll call on H.R. 6918 in its scorecard of key pro-life votes 
     of the 118th Congress.
           Sincerely
     Carol Tobias,
       President.
     Scott Fischbach,
       Executive Director.
     Jennifer Popik, J.D,
       Legislative Director.
                                  ____


                                                 January 15, 2024.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of Catholic Vote, 
     representing the voices of millions of Catholics across 
     America who seek to renew our country and our culture, I am 
     writing to voice our support for H.R. 6914, ``The Pregnant 
     Students' Rights Act'' and H.R. 6918, ``Supporting Pregnant 
     and Parenting Women and Families Act.''

[[Page H209]]

       Women who choose life of their children, and the private 
     organizations that support them, are under unprecedented 
     attack by those who think abortion is the only answer. 
     Unfortunately, this pro-death approach is endorsed by both 
     the Biden administration as well as the Democratic Party. The 
     result is that women who find themselves in situations they 
     did not prepare for falsely believe they are alone and that 
     the only way out is the death of their unborn child.
       H.R. 6914, introduced by Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-IA, would 
     amend the Higher Education Act to require higher education 
     institutions to distribute information about the rights of 
     pregnant students and the resources available to them at the 
     school, via their website, student handbooks, emails, and 
     during student orientations. The bill also reinforces current 
     law requiring schools to adopt and publish procedures for 
     students to file complaints of discrimination related to 
     their sex, pregnancy, or parental status by imploring 
     colleges to make these existing protections and 
     accommodations more widely known.
       H.R. 6918, introduced by Rep. Michelle Fischbach, R-MN, 
     would block a Biden Administration rule that could prohibit 
     states from giving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
     (TANF) funds to pregnancy centers which support the life of 
     both the mother and unborn child.
       Currently there have been hundred of physical attacks on 
     pregnancy resource centers. It is no surprise that the Biden 
     administration would tacitly endorse those attacks by 
     attempting to divert resources away from these lifesaving and 
     life affirming entities. Joe Biden would prefer to make it 
     harder for moms to choose life for their unborn child and 
     take care of themselves and their baby. If this rule takes 
     effect, women in America will have fewer alternatives to 
     abortion and less access to maternal care.
       The passage of these bills should not be controversial; 
     however, the extremism of the Democratic Party has made it 
     clear that if you are a young mother who chooses life they 
     will make it harder for you to prosper. CatholicVote will 
     score in favor of both H.R. 6914, ``The Pregnant Students' 
     Rights Act'' and H.R. 6918, ``Supporting Pregnant and 
     Parenting Women and Families Act'' in our annual scorecard 
     for the 118th Congress.
           Sincerely,

                                              Thomas McClusky,

                                   Director of Government Affairs,
     CatholicVote.
                                  ____


   House Committee Votes To Protect Pregnancy Resource Centers From 
                  Discrimination--SBA Pro-Life America

                   (By Mary Owens, January 11, 2024)

       Today, the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means 
     Committee passed the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women 
     and Families Act, legislation to ensure that pregnancy 
     centers cannot be discriminated against from receiving 
     Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funding. The 
     House is expected to vote on the bill as early as next week.
       This bill is in response to the Biden administration's 
     proposed Health and Human Services (HHS) rule that 
     discriminates against life-affirming non-profits. If the rule 
     goes into effect, it could render pregnancy centers 
     ineligible for this funding. In December, SBA Pro-Life 
     Anrerica and the Charlotte Lozier Institute submitted a 
     public comment pointing out how the rule is unfair and 
     inaccurate.
       The national pro-life group SBA Pro-Life America celebrated 
     the committee's work in a statement:
       The Biden administration is working overtime to prove they 
     are not pro-choice, but pro-abortion by proposing this 
     discriminatory rule and ignoring the majority of Americans 
     who support public funding of pregnancy resource centers,'' 
     said the Honorable Marilyn Musgrave, SBA Pro-Life America's 
     vice president of government affairs. ``The nearly 3,000 
     pregnancy resource centers nationwide provide women with 
     medical, material and emotional support for themselves and 
     their families. We are grateful to the committee for passing 
     this bill that prevents discrimination against centers and 
     protects their ability to continue receiving TANF funds to 
     help moms and families.
       Thank you to Chairman Jason Smith and Representatives 
     Michelle Fischbach, Claudia Tenney and Smith for championing 
     this important legislation and getting it through committee. 
     We urge the House to pass this commonsense legislation.''
       The proposed rule is the latest in a string of political 
     attacks on life-affirming organizations.

  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we will all celebrate 
life and support pregnant and parenting women and families.
  Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 6 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We keep hearing about how these centers provide infant formula, and 
we have a program that helps mothers afford infant formula. It is 
called WIC.
  I remind my colleagues that House Republicans' fiscal year 2024 
Agriculture appropriations bill would have made benefit cuts and 
eligibility losses for millions of mothers who rely on WIC. It would 
have shortchanged WIC by $800 million.
  So, I find the argument that the centers are so necessary to be 
specious because that could have been provided under the Agriculture 
appropriations bill, which my Republican colleagues wanted to cut so 
dramatically. If they really cared about working families, they 
wouldn't be asking for those deep and unconscionable cuts to a program 
that provides infant formula to mothers.

                              {time}  1315

  As we have seen over the past hour, my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle are choosing to double down on their war on women. These 
centers have coerced, deceived, and put women's lives in danger with 
inaccurate, biased information, but don't just take my word for it. A 
congressional investigation found that the majority of these clinics 
surveyed provided false information about abortion. The American 
Medical Association has called these centers unethical because of the 
gross disinformation that they push on vulnerable women.
  These centers are not regulated by State's consumer protection 
statutes which govern the practice of medicine. Republicans have proven 
they have no interest in amending this bill to actually protect 
pregnant women seeking care from these facilities.
  My Ways and Means Republican colleagues voted against ensuring these 
facilities provide medically accurate information.
  Why are they so afraid to provide women with medically accurate 
information?
  My Republican colleagues voted against prohibiting these facilities 
from providing biased reproductive health information or counseling.
  Let me be very clear. Democrats have fought, and we continue to 
fight, for comprehensive equitable access to reproductive healthcare 
for women.
  We passed the Women's Health Protection Act twice.
  We passed the right to contraception.
  The American people have been very clear about supporting access to 
reproductive healthcare. Democrats have proven that we stand with them, 
and this bill that the Republicans have put on the floor today once 
again shows that my Republican colleagues are willing to discard 
pregnant women to appease their extremist anti-choice rightwing base.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time. Pregnancy resource centers are an important option for pregnant 
women seeking care. They provide critical services to support the 
health of mothers and their unborn children, including providing needed 
resources, like diapers, prenatal vitamins, transportation, and 
parenting classes.
  It is unacceptable that the Biden administration proposes to take 
this option away from mothers and to restrict their access to 
healthcare.
  The administration does not have authority under TANF to restrict 
funds for pregnancy resource centers. What is worse is that the 
administration is doing this in order to send more taxpayer dollars to 
Planned Parenthood. This Congress must act on behalf of mothers and the 
right to life.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6918, the 
so called Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act.
  This bill would achieve the exact opposite of its purported goal of 
supporting parenting women and families--instead, it would divers 
funding away from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, 
or TANF. TANF provides cash assistance directly to struggling families 
with children to pay for essential needs. Hypocritically, this extreme 
GOP bill would siphon off funding intended for our neediest families to 
prop up a network of unlicensed, unregulated Crisis Pregnancy Centers 
run by anti-choice activists.
  If the GOP was truly the ``pro-life'' party, they would know that 
TANF is the only federal assistance program that struggling families 
can use to buy diapers for their babies. Families who receive direct 
cash assistance

[[Page H210]]

through TANF can purchase diapers for their children at their nearest 
store. Some of my Republican colleagues have argued that many Crisis 
Pregnancy Centers provide diapers for families. However, if parents had 
to instead rely on Crisis Pregnancy Centers for essential childcare 
needs, they could be forced to travel long distances to centers that 
might not be accessible through public transportation. Additionally, an 
investigation by this very body found that 87% of anti-abortion 
counseling centers provide false or misleading information about 
reproductive care.
  If the GOP was in touch with the needs of their constituents, they 
would know that diaper need is a crisis in America that can overwhelm 
families who are already financially struggling. An average monthly 
supply of diapers for a single child costs $80 to $100. As of 2023, 
half of U.S. families report not being able to afford enough diapers to 
keep their child clean, dry, and healthy, and 3 in 5 parents report 
missing work or school because they can't afford the diapers required 
to leave their baby in childcare. Tell me, how is taking away the only 
federal funding for diapers pro-life?
  I strongly oppose this farce of a bill that would only harm 
struggling families.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak in strong 
opposition to the proposed legislation, H.R. 6918--Supporting Pregnant 
and Parenting Women and Families Act.
  This legislation, in my view, represents a concerning step in the 
wrong direction.
  It has been characterized by critics as part of a broader effort by 
conservative Republicans to limit women's reproductive freedom.
  With nearly 18 months having passed since the pivotal Roe v. Wade 
decision was overturned, the introduction of this bill signals a 
continued push towards what some view as a national ban on abortion.
  I believe that reproductive rights are a fundamental aspect of 
individual autonomy, and any legislative measures that may restrict or 
impede these rights warrant scrutiny.
  Furthermore, the potential allocation of federal funds to support 
such measures raises serious concerns about the appropriate use of 
taxpayer dollars and the role of government in personal healthcare 
decisions.
  I am committed to advocating for policies that uphold and protect the 
reproductive rights of individuals, recognizing the importance of a 
balanced and inclusive approach that respects diverse perspectives.
  This legislation seeks to undermine a woman's right to access 
abortion services by employing tactics that involve misleading 
information, deceptive practices, and attempts at shaming individuals 
seeking reproductive care.
  We as Democrats, in response, remain steadfast in our commitment to 
enshrine reproductive freedom as a legal right through the Women's 
Health Protection Act (H.R. 12).
  This comprehensive legislation aims to safeguard individuals' access 
to essential reproductive healthcare services and protect them from 
deceptive practices that may obstruct their right to make informed 
choices about their reproductive health.
  We must advocate for a legislative approach that prioritizes the 
autonomy and well-being of individuals seeking reproductive care while 
countering efforts to curtail their rights through disinformation and 
coercion.
  In addition, H.R. 6918 raises significant concerns as it proposes 
funding for what are commonly referred to as ``crisis pregnancy 
centers'' or anti-abortion centers (AACs).
  These entities have been criticized for engaging in deceptive 
practices that aim to manipulate women during their pregnancies, 
potentially hindering their ability to access comprehensive 
reproductive care.
  In light of these considerations, I firmly oppose H.R. 6918 and will 
work to ensure that the legislative process reflects a careful 
examination of its potential impact on the rights and choices of 
individuals.
  In my home state of Texas where abortion have been completely banned, 
our state has continued to struggle with maternal mortality and 
morbidity, and the rates are only expected to increase as the years go 
by.
  In 2013, when Texas first started tracking deaths and severe illness 
or injury from pregnancy and childbirth, Black women were twice as 
likely as white women and four times as likely as Hispanic women to die 
from pregnancy-related causes.
  This number has only increased as more women are being denied 
lifesaving abortion measures and face inadequate care after birth.
  Another undermining aspect of this bill is in its use of TANF, or 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
  TANF plays a crucial role as it is a vital resource for families 
across the country.
  This bill, however, introduces a concerning element by potentially 
creating a loophole that could divert essential funding away from its 
intended purpose, channeling it toward anti-abortion crisis pregnancy 
centers.
  These centers have faced scrutiny for their practices, with critics 
arguing that they may engage in deceptive tactics, potentially 
impacting the comprehensive support available to families.
  By allowing TANF funding to be redirected to such centers, there is a 
risk that the intended assistance for struggling families may be 
compromised.
  TANF's importance cannot be underestimated as it provides financial 
support, job preparation, and other essential services to low-income 
families.
  The proposed diversion of funds to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy 
centers raises questions about the broader impact on the social safety 
net and the potential limitations it might place on the availability of 
diverse and comprehensive resources for those in need.
  As discussions on this bill unfold, it is crucial to assess how any 
changes may affect the original objectives of TANF and the families it 
is designed to support.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 969, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
        Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6918 
     to the Committee on Ways and Means.

  The material previously referred to by Ms. Davids of Kansas is as 
follows:
        Ms. Davids of Kansas moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6918 
     to the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith, with the 
     following amendment:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. _. LIMITATION.

       Section 2 shall not take effect unless the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services finds that there is no pregnancy 
     center (as defined in section 2) that provides medically 
     inaccurate or deceptive information or puts at risk the 
     health of women.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. 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.

                          ____________________