Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule submitted by Secretary of Health and Human Services relating to compliance with title X requirements by project recipients in selecting subrecipients.

Mr. President, this vote had to be held open in order to allow time for Vice President Pence to come down and break a tie.

My colleagues and I came to the floor weeks ago to make clear that this harmful legislation should not come to the floor. Republicans didn't listen to us, and they didn't listen to women across the country who made it clear that restricting women's access to the full range of reproductive care is unacceptable. We are not going to give up. We are going to keep holding them accountable, and we are going to keep making sure that women's voices are heard.

I want to thank all of my colleagues who have already come and will continue to come to the floor today to stand against this shameful, dangerous resolution.

The march that was held after President Trump was inaugurated was one of the most inspiring events I have ever had the opportunity to be a part of. Millions of people--men and women--marched in Seattle in my home State, here in Washington, DC, and in cities and towns in between and all across the world. They carried signs, they chanted, and they made it absolutely clear that when it comes to women's rights and healthcare, people across the country do not want to go backward. Since then, millions of people have continued to speak up and stand up. And last Friday, by the way, was no different.

Republicans have been threatening for years now to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, but it took just a few weeks for families nationwide to stand up and fight back and shut down a deeply harmful plan that would have taken healthcare away from tens of millions of people, spiked our premiums, targeted seniors for higher costs, and cut off access to critical services at Planned Parenthood.

I was so inspired by the countless people who bravely shared their personal stories about their health and their loved ones in order to make clear just how damaging--and even deadly--TrumpCare would have been. I am proud to say that women led the way and made it known, in no uncertain terms, that Republicans would be held fully accountable for the disastrous TrumpCare legislation.

And try as they might, last week, Republicans couldn't ignore them. This was an absolute, undeniable victory for women and families in this country.

But while TrumpCare was dealt a significant blow last week, it is clear the terrible ideas that underpin it live on now, today, in this Republican Congress. It is unprecedented that we are here, with the Vice President breaking a tie vote on an attack on women's health across this country.

We are here today, once again, because President Trump and Republicans in Congress are not getting the message. Today, continuing on their extreme, anti-women agenda, Senate Republicans are rushing now to roll back a rule that protects family planning providers from being discriminated against and denied Federal funding.

Let me explain a little bit about what family planning providers mean to our communities. Those providers that are part of the title X program--which has, by the way, bipartisan history--deliver critical healthcare services nationwide, and they are especially needed in our rural and our frontier areas.

In 2015 alone, title X provided basic primary and preventive healthcare services--services like Pap tests and breast exams and birth control and HIV testing--to more than 4 million low-income women and men at nearly 4,000 health centers. In my home State of Washington, tens of thousands of patients are able to receive care at these centers each year, and they often have nowhere else to turn for their healthcare. In fact, 40 percent of women who receive care at health centers funded by title X consider it to be their only source of healthcare.

So taking resources away from these providers, which this resolution would do, would be cruel, and it would have the greatest impact on women and families who need it the most. It would undo a valuable effort by the Obama administration to ensure that healthcare providers are evaluated for Federal funding based on their ability to provide the services in question, not on ideology. In doing so, this resolution would make it even easier for States led by extreme politicians to deny family planning providers Federal dollars, not because of the quality of care that they get or provide or their value to the communities they serve, but based on whether the politicians in charge--the politicians in charge--agree that women should be able to exercise their constitutionally protected right to reproductive healthcare.

This is wrong. It is dangerous, and we cannot let this stand.

If Republicans think that millions of people who stood up last week have suddenly stopped paying attention, they are sorely mistaken. And if they think that Senate Democrats are not going to fight back, they have another thing coming. They can expect every single Democrat in the Senate--and I hope some Republicans who are concerned about losing healthcare providers in their States--to fight back against this resolution with everything they have.

This vote won by a tie vote, and the Vice President was the tie vote. It will take one Republican this afternoon on the final vote to say yes for the women in their State and States' rights to say no. That is all we are asking for the women of this country.

While I have the floor, I want to say we should all be aware there is more headed our way. In a matter of weeks, we all know that government funding is going to run out. Everybody understands this. I know that since they didn't get their way last week and they are pushing this resolution so hard today to the point where they bring the Vice President to break a tie, it is a safe bet that extreme Republicans are going to try to attach riders that try to take away Planned Parenthood funding in the spending bill for the rest of this year.

So I want to be very clear from the outset: That is a complete nonstarter. We have been here before. We have shown that we can win, and we are going to fight these efforts every step of the way.

So I urge people across the country to let their Senators know that this is not acceptable. Stand up for women and families and for their rights to take care of their own reproductive healthcare at the facility that provides for them in their own communities.

I urge my colleagues: Don't make the same mistake again. End the damaging political attacks on women, and stand with millions of women and men and families. They need us.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I want to thank my colleagues who are here speaking out against this shameful resolution that is before us today that goes after women's rights and their opportunity to make their own healthcare decisions with their own provider.

I, too, want to echo the comments that were just made. I find it amazing that the Republicans have yielded back all of their time. They are not going to come out here and defend their vote; they are just going to take the vote.

In fact, it seems clear to me that President Trump is clearly focused on attacking women's healthcare--so much so that he sent his women's health adviser, Vice President Pence, here just moments ago to break a tie on this latest disgusting attack on women's healthcare. It is truly appalling.

Women and men across the country are watching what is happening here today, watching what Republicans are trying to do, and they are paying attention.

Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

Madam President, I wish today's resolution was the only shameful attack on women's health to talk about, but sadly that is not the case. So I do want to take a few minutes at this time to talk about another one that is very critical to women and families--not just today, but actually for years and years to come it will be happening, and that is the Supreme Court.

Last week I announced I would be voting against Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court, and I will oppose a cloture motion ending debate. I did not reach that conclusion lightly. I consider my decisions about whether to support a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court to be among the most important and consequential choices I make as a Senator. But I made it in part because this is not a normal nomination.

This process really began about 12 months ago when Senate Republicans refused to even consider President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland. And because since President Trump entered office, he has shown complete disregard for the law, for our Constitution, for the well-being of families across the country, leaving me unable to trust that he is acting in our Nation's best interest, I am unable to support his choice for the Supreme Court.

In addition to my deep concerns about this process and this administration, I also have strong concerns about this nominee specifically. Today, as Republicans appear to be rushing Judge Gorsuch's nomination through the Judiciary Committee as fast as they can, I want to lay out why putting Judge Gorsuch on the Supreme Court would be an attack on women's health, rights, and opportunity, one that has the potential to undo decades of progress we have made toward making sure women are equally able to participate in and contribute to our country.

The Trump administration has broken almost every one of its promises, but one it has certainly kept is its promise to do everything in its power to turn back the clock on women's health and women's rights. Extreme Republicans in Congress are doing the same and have more, apparently, in store. Right now, we are debating whether to undo a rule that prevents discrimination against family planning providers based on the kinds of services they provide to women. Congressional Republicans are already gearing up to attach riders to the coming budget bills in order to cut off access to critical services at Planned Parenthood for millions of patients in this country. There are similar attempts to undermine women's access to healthcare in cities and States nationwide.

More often than we would like, the Supreme Court is going to be the place of last resort for protecting women's hard-fought gains. The buck has to stop with the Supreme Court on women's health and rights.

I do not want Judge Neil Gorsuch anywhere near the bench. Time and again, Judge Gorsuch has sided with the extreme rightwing and against the tens of millions of women and men who believe that in this 21st century, women should be able to make their own choices about their own bodies.

Let me give a few examples. When the Tenth Circuit ruled in the case of Hobby Lobby v. Burwell that a women's boss--a woman's boss--could decide whether her insurance would include birth control, Judge Gorsuch didn't just agree, he thought the ruling should have gone further. That alone would be enough for me to oppose this nomination, but unfortunately there is more.

Judge Gorsuch has argued that birth control coverage included in the ACA as an essential part of a woman's healthcare--one that has now benefited 55 million women--is what he calls a ``clear burden'' on employers that would not long survive.

When it comes to Planned Parenthood, he has already weighed in on the side of defunding our Nation's largest provider of women's healthcare. What was his reasoning? Well, Judge Gorsuch thought that in light of completely discredited sting videos taken by extreme conservatives, women in the State of Utah should have a harder time accessing the care they need. Just this week, the makers of those false videos, by the way, got 15 felony charges. Women deserve independence and objectivity in a Supreme Court Justice, and that is clearly not it.

Attempts to control women's bodies aren't always about reproductive rights. Sure enough, Judge Gorsuch is on the wrong side here as well. He concurred in a ruling against a transgender woman who was denied regular access to hormone therapy while she was in prison. This ruling rejected the idea that under our Constitution, denying healthcare services is cruel and unusual punishment. Think about that. That is not the kind of judgment I want to see on the bench, and I think most families would agree.

I also want to be clear as well about what Judge Gorsuch's nomination could mean for a woman's constitutionally protected right to safe, legal abortion services under the historic ruling in Roe v. Wade, which was, by the way, reaffirmed just last summer by the Court. In his nomination hearings, Judge Gorsuch wouldn't give a clear answer on whether he would uphold this ruling which has meant so much to so many women and families over the last four decades.

Judge Gorsuch has donated repeatedly to politicians who are dead-set on interfering with women's constitutionally protected healthcare decisions, and he has even made deeply inaccurate comparisons between abortion and assisted suicide.

I remember the days before Roe v. Wade very clearly. I heard and saw firsthand the stories of women faced with truly impossible choices during those times. Women from all across the country have shared deeply personal experiences because they know what it would mean to go backward. I know that millions of women who have already done so much to lead the resistance against this administration and its damaging, divisive agenda are going to fight this nomination as hard as they can. They know the Trump Presidency will be damaging enough for 4 years, but Judge Gorsuch's nomination could roll back progress for women over a lifetime. I am proud to stand with them and do everything I can to make sure they are heard loud and clear here in the Senate, and I oppose Judge Gorsuch's nomination in light of everything it would mean for women now and for generations to come. Next week is when we will vote on that.

Today here in the Senate, we just saw a historic moment. The Senate Republicans put forth a resolution that would allow States to deny funding to providers in their States who provide healthcare services for women--funding that is desperately needed. They got only 50 votes, and those in opposition got 50 votes, so they brought over the Vice President of the United States, and he broke that tie in order for us to be here to debate this resolution now. This vote will now occur, under the order, later this afternoon, and he will be brought back once again to deny women the healthcare choices they deserve to have. It is a sad day for the Senate.

I want my friends, colleagues, and the women who have stood up and have spoken out since the day after the election, marched here in Washington, DC, and across the country, to know that I stand with them. My voice will not be silenced. I will continue to fight back.

I will say one more time that it will take one more Republican on the other side this afternoon--one--to stand up and let their voice be heard and say that women should get access equally in their States for the healthcare they deserve.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I have to say that this is a sad day for the Senate. I know many of us here today--certainly my Democratic colleagues--are truly appalled. Once

again, instead of working on the many pressing issues at hand, Republicans are continuing their tired, dangerous obsession with attacking women's health.

Once again, women's health is being used as a political football, with Republicans attempting to cut off access to vital healthcare services. Once again, millions of families across the country are watching Congress, wondering why there isn't just one more Republican who will stand up for them.

The Republicans just held a vote open for nearly an hour to force a vote that would allow politicians to discriminate against family planning providers. Of course, whenever they can't make a vote, when women's health is being attacked, whom do Senate Republicans call to break that tie in the Senate? Vice President Mike Pence.

We have actually seen this before. We all remember what happened in the nomination of Secretary DeVos, and we all know that enough is enough. This is shameful. This is wrong. It cannot stand.

Families have spoken time and again, and they have made it absolutely career that when it comes to women's rights and healthcare, they do not want to go backward. But today, thanks to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, thanks to Vice President Pence, the Senate will hold a vote on whether critical healthcare services should be taken away from millions of women across the country.

Let's not forget, it hasn't even been a week since people nationwide completely rejected TrumpCare, that disastrous bill that would have undermined women's rights and healthcare in so many ways.

Now, here in the Senate today, we are about to vote on whether a young woman should be able to go to the provider that she trusts to get birth control; whether it is Pap tests, breast exams, birth control, or HIV testing, which should be more or less available to women across the country; whether healthcare providers are evaluated for Federal funding based on their ability to provide services or ideology; whether women are able to exercise their constitutionally protected rights to reproductive healthcare; and whether the Senate is going to turn back the clock today on women's health.

For me and for Democrats, and I know even for some Republicans, it is disappointing, deeply disappointing, that we are even having this vote today--a vote that was jammed through, with 48 Democrats and 2 Republicans voting no and Vice President Pence coming down to break the tie.

Put simply, rolling back this rule today will put at risk women's lives, like a constituent of mine from Tacoma, WA. She wrote me a letter recently to tell me the many reasons this is so important to her.

When she was 20, she was uninsured. She had no other options. A family planning center was there for her. During a routine Pap test, her doctor discovered a precancerous condition in her cervix. That led to surgery, which saved her life and saved her fertility.

Without access to that provider, she would not have been able to get a regular Pap smear and checkup and most likely would have developed cervical cancer. She would not have been able to get pregnant, go on to have a daughter, become a community college counselor, and today, at the age of 65, be cancer-free.

I hope that some of my Republican colleagues are listening and that they think of women just like this, whose lives are healthier and have been saved because of the services of so many family planning centers. That is who I will be thinking about. That is what has always kept me going.

I urge people across the country right now to let Senators know that this vote today, this rule is not OK. It is not acceptable. Make phone calls. Go on Facebook. Tweet about it. Everything helps. Tell your Senator today that in about an hour, with their vote, to stand up for you, for your family, and for women across the country.

We need only one more Republican--one more--to join us. This vote that we are about to have in about an hour is dead even, on the razor's edge. Fifty Senators--48 Democrats and 2 Republicans--will vote to reject this harmful, disgusting resolution. We just need one more Republican to join us, to stand on the side of women and men and families, and put an end to this damaging political attack on women.

I am sure people will hear about this. I am going to be here on the floor. Many of my colleagues are going to be out here talking about it. People nationwide will have the opportunity to know exactly where every Republican stands on this.

I urge our Republican colleagues: Stop to think about what you are doing, taking away the ability of women in communities across our country to go to the provider they trust for the care that is most important to them, their families, and our country's future. I urge them to make the right choice.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I see my colleague from Illinois is here. While she is setting up, I just want everybody to realize what is happening here. We are debating a rule that, should the Republicans-- with the Vice President voting to break the tie this afternoon--put it in place, will allow the discrimination of healthcare providers for women across the country.

I have many Democratic colleagues here making the case for those women, mostly low income, who have no other access, particularly in our rural and urban regions. I just want to note that there are no Republicans out here saying why this rule needs to be passed. They just want it done, over with; the Vice President to break the tie, and it is out of here. We are noticing. Women are noticing. People are noticing.

I thank all of my Democratic colleagues and a few brave Republicans who are with us for their support to get this done. We need one more Republican to be able to defeat this.

I yield to my colleague.

Mr. President I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want Senate Republicans who are about to take this vote--and Vice President Pence--to be very clear on what they are about to do. As a direct result of their choices today, extreme politicians in States across the country will have greater power to take away women's choices.

I think it speaks volumes that the vote to uphold this rule--which simply says family planning centers, where women can exercise their constitutionally protected rights, should not be

discriminated against--is bipartisan. But do you know what I think is most striking about this vote? The deafening silence from the group of almost entirely male Republican Senators who are voting today to make it harder for women to get the healthcare they need. Not one spoke today to justify this vote. Where are those Republican Senators? Why did they feel so entitled not just to interfere with women's healthcare decisions but to do so without explaining themselves? If they are ashamed of their votes, which they should be, they had ample opportunity to reconsider.

I came to the floor with my Democratic colleagues weeks ago to urge Republicans not to bring this damaging legislation to the floor. We asked for just one Republican vote today to prevent this attack on women's health. And women across the country, in Republican and Democratic States, called, emailed, tweeted, and organized to say that these restrictions on women's access to healthcare have no place in our country or in the 21st century. But what have these 50 Senate Republicans done? They refused to listen, and they refused to answer for their actions.

Frankly, women deserve better. The thing is, women know it. So today, as a woman, I am angry. As a mother and a grandmother, I am furious about what attacks like this mean for our daughters and our granddaughters, especially those who are struggling and disproportionately rely on family planning centers. But as a Senator, I am more confident than ever that Republicans who fail to listen to the women of this country do so at their own peril. I have had the chance to see how much impact women have when they call and march and organize and make their voices heard.

The fact that Vice President Pence had to come and break this tie today, that Senate Republican leaders could not twist enough arms to pass this bill on their own, is clear evidence. So is the failure of House Republicans' abysmal TrumpCare bill, which would have cut off access to critical services at Planned Parenthood.

I know without a doubt that Republican Senators who vote against women and with their extreme base today and who rely on this anti-women administration to jam this resolution through will be held accountable both by women across the country and women right here in the Senate. We will keep making our voices heard. We will fight back against these attacks on our rights and our own self-determination, and ultimately, you can be sure, we will win.

I yield the floor.

I yield back the time on this side.

The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Before I start, I include in the Record a letter from over 20 healthcare provider organizations regarding the danger of cutting certain providers off from title X funding because they also provide abortion with private funds.

February 3, 2017.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Senate Majority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Charles Schumer,

Senate Minority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Leader McConnell, Speaker Ryan, Leader Schumer and

Leader Pelosi: As organizations representing health care and

public health professionals and the people they serve across

the country, we strongly oppose any effort to prevent Planned

Parenthood health centers from participating in federal

health programs, including Medicaid and the Title X family

planning program. Any proposal to exclude Planned Parenthood

from public health programs will severely curtail women's

access to essential health care services, including family

planning, well-woman exams, breast and cervical cancers

screenings, and HIV testing and counseling. At a time when

there is much uncertainty about the future of affordable

health care in our country, it is dangerous to cut off access

to the life-saving preventive care that Planned Parenthood

provides to some of our nation's most vulnerable patients.

Planned Parenthood health centers play a crucial role in

improving the health and lives of people across the country.

In fact, 2.5 million women, men and young people rely on

Planned Parenthood for health care every year. For many

women, Planned Parenthood is their only source of care--

offering basic preventive services that are fundamental to

women's health and well-being. More than 50% of Planned

Parenthood health centers are in areas with health

professional shortages, rural or medically underserved areas.

In 2014 alone, Planned Parenthood health centers provided

nearly 400,000 cervical cancer screenings and more than

360,000 breast exams. Additionally, Planned Parenthood

provides contraceptive services for over 2 million patients

and more than 4 million tests and treatments for sexually

transmitted infections, including HIV. These services improve

women's health, prevent an estimated 579,000 unintended

pregnancies, and decrease infant mortality.

Policies that would exclude Planned Parenthood from public

health funding would hurt millions of patients and undermine

health care access in communities across the country.

Limiting access to Planned Parenthood's approximately 650

health care centers across the country would prevent patients

from having timely access to basic preventive health care

services. Approximately 60 percent of Planned Parenthood

patients access care through Medicaid and Title X, in

addition to those who rely on other essential programs,

including maternal and child health programs and Centers for

Disease and Prevention (CDC) breast and cervical cancer

screening programs. In some states, Planned Parenthood is the

only provider participating in Title X, and more than 50

percent of Planned Parenthood health centers are located in a

medically underserved or health professional shortage area.

Because federal law already requires health care providers to

demonstrate that no federal funds are used for abortion,

prohibitions on funding for preventive care at Planned

Parenthood health centers will only devastate access to these

life-saving services.

In addition to limiting patients access to health care,

defunding Planned Parenthood is not cost effective. The

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that

approximately 390,000 women would lose access and up to

650,000 patients could face reduced access to preventive

health care within a year should Congress act to block all

Medicaid patients from receiving care at Planned Parenthood

health centers. The CBO also projects that excluding Planned

Parenthood health centers from receiving reimbursement

through the Medicaid program would result in a net cost to

taxpayers of $130 million over 10 years because of the

increase in unintended pregnancies without the contraceptive

care provided by Planned Parenthood. Other publicly funded

health centers would not be able to compensate for the loss

of affordable family planning and reproductive health care

services provided by Planned Parenthood.

Every day, we see the harmful impact that unequal access to

health care has on women and communities across the country,

and we therefore strongly support policies that improve

access to affordable, quality health care. Policies that

would deny Planned Parenthood public health funds only serve

to cut millions off from critical preventive care, and we

strongly oppose any effort to do so. We also recognize this

as part of a broader effort to undermine access to safe,

legal abortion and curtail access to other reproductive

health care by limiting the ability of abortion providers to

participate in public health programs.

Sincerely,

American Academy of Nursing, American Academy of

Pediatrics, American College of Nurse-Midwives, American

Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical

Student Association, American Medical Women's Association

(AMWA), American Nurses Association, American Psychological

Association, American Public Health Association, American

Society for Reproductive Medicine, Association of

Reproductive Health Professionals, Doctors for America, GLMA:

Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality.

Midwest Access Project, The National Alliance to Advance

Adolescent Health, National Family Planning & Reproductive

Health Association, National Medical Association, National

Physicians Alliance, North American Society for Pediatric and

Adolescent Gynecology (NASPAG), Nurse Practitioners in

Women's Health, Nursing Students for Sexual & Reproductive

Health, Physicians for Reproductive Health, Society for

Adolescent Health and Medicine, Society for Maternal-Fetal

Medicine, Society of Family Planning.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from myself and 161 other Members to Speaker Ryan opposing the Republican majority's efforts to undermine title X family planning programs and women's access to health care.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, February 14, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House of Representatives, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan: We write to express our grave concern

for efforts to undermine Title X family planning. Despite

promises to focus on jobs and the economy, Republicans have

started the 115th Congress with a total assault on women's

choices, access to care, and economic security by:

Charging ahead to sabotage and dismantle the Affordable

Care Act (ACA) while making no promises to preserve vital

protections for women;

Providing little to no details on their plans to replace

ACA, while making a point to announce that their ACA repeal

package will block access to Planned Parenthood, a high-

quality, long-trusted provider of reproductive health

services;

Rushing to impose and dramatically expand the global gag

rule, harming women around the world; and

Advancing the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion

Insurance Full Disclosure Act (H.R. 7) through the House,

effectively banning private insurance companies from covering

comprehensive reproductive health services.

Now, with their most recent effort to weaken the Title X

national family planning program through the Congressional

Review Act, Republicans have demonstrated that they will stop

at nothing to limit women's access to vital health care.

Sadly, this includes contraception and family planning

services that all women need.

For more than 40 years, Title X has served as a cornerstone

of safety-net care. As the only dedicated source of federal

funding for family planning, Title X allows a diverse network

of providers to deliver high-quality care to low-income,

uninsured, or underinsured individuals and to those seeking

confidential care. In 2014 alone, Title X-funded clinics

helped prevent approximately 904,000 unintended pregnancies,

326,000 abortions, and 439,000 unplanned births. In addition

to direct clinical care, Title X also supports critical

infrastructure needs for health centers, including new

medical equipment and staff training that are not

reimbursable under Medicaid and commercial insurance. This

infrastructure is vital to ensuring safe, quality care at

health centers which serve and provide basic health services

to high-need populations.

Throughout both Democratic and Republican administrations,

Title X has been interpreted to prohibit state actions that

block providers or classes of providers from participating in

a Title X project based on factors unrelated to a provider's

qualifications to perform the required services. The networks

include providers ranging from state, county, and local

health departments as well as hospitals, family planning

councils, Planned Parenthood affiliates, federally qualified

health centers and other private non-profit organizations. In

fact, in instances when states have passed laws to

limit provider participation in Title X, federal courts have

consistently held that those state laws are contrary to, and

preempted by, federal law.

In response to a growing number of states targeting family

planning providers for exclusion from key federal health

programs, including Title X, the previous Administration

proposed the regulation ``Compliance with Title X

Requirements by Project Recipients in Selecting

Subrecipients.'' The regulation, which was finalized in

December 2016, helps ensure patient access to family planning

services and supplies through qualified providers by

reiterating that ``no recipient making subawards for the

provision of services as part of its Title X project may

prohibit an entity from participating for reasons other than

its ability to provide Title X services. During the

rulemaking process, the Department of Health and Human

Services received more than 145,000 comments, the vast

majority of which supported the rule.

Women across the United States, and the men who support

them, have had enough. It is unconscionable that this common

sense clarification has become a political football for

members of Congress who want to limit women's access to

comprehensive reproductive health care. We urge you to stand

in support of women and oppose this assault on contraceptive

access and care.

Sincerely,

Judy Chu, Louise Slaughter, Diana DeGette, Frank Pallone,

Jr., Earl Blumenauer, Suzan DelBene, Lois Frankel, Alcee L.

Hastings, Brenda L. Lawrence, Sean Patrick Maloney, Jerry

McNerney, Danny K. Davis, Eliot L. Engel, Raul M. Grijalva,

William R. Keating, Barbara Lee, Doris Matsui, Gwen Moore,

Eleanor Holmes Norton, Jan Schakowsky.

Jackie Speier, Peter A. DeFazio, Katherine Clark, Dina

Titus, Linda T. Sanchez, Mike Quigley, Mark Pocan, Grace F.

Napolitano, Alma S. Adams, Mark Takano, Grace Meng, Yvette D.

Clarke, Kathleen M. Rice, Brian Higgins, Debbie Wasserman

Schultz, Pete Aguilar, Betty McCollum, Lucille Roybal-Allard,

Suzanne Bonamici, Luis V. Gutierrez, Raja Krishnamoorthi.

Scott H. Peters, Anna G. Eshoo, James P. McGovern, John

Yarmuth, Wm. Lacy Clay, Gene Green, Jimmy Panetta, Jose E.

Serrano, Joseph P. Kennedy, III, Carol Shea-Porter, Jared

Huffman, Nita M. Lowey, Carolyn B. Maloney, Niki Tsongas,

Andre Carson, Jerrold Nadler, Chellie Pingree, Zoe Lofgren,

Seth Moulton, Kurt Schrader, C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger.

Sander M. Levin, Rick Larsen, Bill Foster, Frederica S.

Wilson, Adam Smith, David Scott, Pramila Jayapal, Paul Tonko,

Kathy Castor, Marc A. Veasey, Ted W. Lieu, Peter Welch, Ami

Bera, Eddie Bernice Johnson, G.K. Butterfield, Steven

Cohen, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Daniel T. Kildee,

Beto O'Rourke, Julia Brownley.

Marcia L. Fudge, Tony Cardenas, Joseph H. Crowley, Marcy

Kaptur, Alan Lowenthal, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Albio Sires, Eric

Swalwell, Joyce Beatty, Ron Kind, Pete Visclosky, Cedric L.

Richmond, Al Green, Darren Soto, Juan Vargas, Mike Doyle,

Bradley S. Schneider, Donald S. Beyer, Jr., Raul Ruiz,

Elizabeth H. Esty.

Salud Carbajal, Robert A. Brady, Derek Kilmer, Gregory W.

Meeks, Emanuel Cleaver, Theodore E. Deutch, Mike Thompson,

Hakeem Jeffries, Adriano Espaillat, David N. Cicilline, Tim

Ryan, Val Butler Demings, Adam B. Schiff, Brad Sherman, Rosa

DeLauro, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Jim Himes, Donald Norcross,

Michelle Lujan Grisham, Matt Cartwright.

John Conyers, Jr., Gerald E. Connolly, Debbie Dingell,

David Loebsack, Stephen F. Lynch, Keith Ellison, Mark

DeSaulnier, John Garamendi, Denny Heck, Jamie Raskin, Nydia

M. Velazquez, Sheila Jackson Lee, David E. Price, James R.

Langevin, Colleen Hanabusa, Robin L. Kelly, Terri Sewell, Ben

Ray Lujan, Josh Gottheimer, Susan Davis.

Cheri Bustos, Michael Capuano, Jacky Rosen, Norma J.

Torres, Donald M. Payne, Jr., A. Donald McEachin, John Lewis,

Joe Courtney, Ruben J. Kihuen, Brendan F. Boyle, Jared Polis,

Ann McLane Kuster, Jim Cooper, Charlie Crist, Anthony Brown,

Filemon Vela, Ed Perlmutter, Lisa Blunt Rochester, John

Sarbanes, John B. Larson.

Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the majority is in the midst of an unprecedented and relentless assault on women's health--and many other regulations while we are at it--that are being overturned every day here.

Although it pledged to govern by prioritizing jobs and the economy, the majority is, instead, escalating its war on women with H.J. Res. 43, a dangerous continuation of its never-ending crusade against access to health care for women.

The majority started the 115th Congress by moving quickly to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act, a law that finally barred insurance companies from treating women as being a preexisting condition. Without this law, women once again would pay a higher rate for coverage than men.

Think about that for a moment. If everybody doesn't know it, before this law, single women paid from 10 to 57 percent more than men for their health insurance in States that allowed gender rating. A lot of people don't understand this, but it costs American women nearly a billion dollars every year. But Republicans are rushing to repeal the Affordable Care Act without anything to take its place.

The majority has also advanced H.R. 7, a sweeping bill that would go beyond even the Hyde amendment, a 40-year provision that has been around for four decades too long.

This legislation wouldn't just make this amendment permanent; it would also place unprecedented limits on women's access to reproductive health services even if they wanted to pay out of their own pockets to access constitutionally protected abortion services.

These moves by the majority, along with the President signing a dramatic expansion of the global gag rule immediately after taking office, have brought millions of people pouring into the streets in protest.

During the National Women's March, millions of people marched all across the country and even around the globe to defend women's rights. These marches were likely the largest day of protests in American history. More than half a million people took to the streets right here in the Nation's Capital. They were peaceful, without a single arrest reported anywhere in the country.

Far from respecting those rights, the majority is today considering a measure that marks an entirely new front in their war against women's rights. This is the most serious threat facing women so far in this Congress, and it is only February.

Programs supported by title X help provide lifesaving preventative healthcare services like contraception, cancer screening, and STD testing to the men and women who need them most.

It is outrageous that the majority today is trying to allow conservative State legislatures to pick and choose who can provide this essential care with Federal money. That is one of the worst things in the world. The luck of the draw of where you live will determine whether or not you have access that is entitled to all people from the Federal money. This would threaten health centers from coast to coast.

Mr. Speaker, we are facing the same problem today we faced for a very long time: men in blue suits and red ties determining what women can and should do when it comes to their own health. They believe the majority of persons--women--in the United States are incapable of making their own decisions.

Do you think that about your own mother or your wife?

Because Washington, D.C., is controlled by this Republican majority, the stakes for women are higher today than they have been in generations, as we turn over laws passed by the elected government of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders in Congress turn a deaf ear to the majority of Americans who oppose this dramatic government intervention into women's health care. They, unfortunately, have the votes to pass it, but they will have to reckon with the overwhelming majority of the public who understands it is time for the government to get out of the business of taking away women's healthcare rights.

Mr. Speaker, let me take a personal moment to speak about the departure of a long-time member of my staff on the Rules Committee. I have always believed that this committee is like family and that we have one of the most respected staffs on Capitol Hill. Adam Berg, the deputy staff director and counsel on the Democratic staff personifies this.

After a decade of working for the Rules Committee, Adam is beginning a new chapter on a different committee in the House of Representatives. His knowledge and guidance these last years have been immeasurable.

During his time here, he has married his wife, Erika, who is beautiful and talented, and became a father to his daughter, Ariel, who was singing songs with her mother at the age of 3 months. That is a precocious child.

Adam has played a key role as this committee brought landmark legislation to the floor of the House, including Dodd-Frank, the Affordable Care Act, and legislation to raise the Federal minimum wage.

The committee wouldn't have been as effective without Adam's counsel, and he will be greatly missed. I wish him nothing but the best in his new endeavor.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I think I need to make this point one more time. I really believe that everybody in this House understands that not a dime of Federal money is used for abortions. It never has been, never will. There is meticulous care taken by Planned Parenthood to separate those funds. They have never been questioned in any way by the IRS as to how those funds are being used.

I am sick and tired of everybody saying you can't give anything to Planned Parenthood. The money that goes to Planned Parenthood from this Federal Government goes to reimburse for services rendered for the things I had talked about before: cervical cancer tests, cancer tests of all sorts, and health care that they cannot get anywhere else, such as screening for STDs. That is totally separate.

Yet, that fable that Federal money is used for abortions if you fund Planned Parenthood is totally false. I think it is time that grownups that can read in the House of Representatives do away with that notion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned by reports from our intelligence community regarding the foreign interference in our most recent election. The fears have only been compounded by the troubling revelations published in The New York Times last night that members of the Trump campaign had been in frequent contact with Russian intelligence officials during that campaign.

Mr. Speaker, the future of our democracy is at stake. We are seeing the

same kinds of things that have happened all over Europe, as governments have been changing away from democracies. It is at stake here, and it is time this Republican-controlled Congress does its job and gets to the bottom of this.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Swalwell's and Representative Cummings' bill which would create a bipartisan commission to investigate foreign interference in our 2016 election.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the privilege of meeting hundreds of constituents who traveled from Rochester, New York, to Washington, D.C., for the Women's March on Washington. Some of them came with three generations, and it was most impressive, but it is troubling to me that we are fighting many of the same battles that were fought and won generations ago.

The unprecedented marches and rallies that have been happening are necessary because of efforts like this to continually chip away at women's healthcare rights. The sad reality is that politicians have always worked to put up new roadblocks between women and their health care. It has always been my personal belief that when faced with a decision that needs to be made about a pregnancy, a woman should consult whomever she chooses--certainly her husband, her spiritual adviser, her medical adviser, but no one wants to wait in the room until a Congressperson gets there to make the final decision. We are going way beyond our depth to try to make that decision for persons. The government should not be in the business of doing that. The majority has made attacking women's constitutional rights the first order of business this year, working alongside our new President, and it is shameful.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the other measure before us today would repeal the Alaska predator rule which protects the interests of all Americans in national wildlife refuges while banning some of the most inhumane tactics for killing, like killing black bears from an airplane and killing coyote pups in their dens. We should be listening to scientists who study and understand these species, not an ideological minority that sees every animal with teeth as a threat to civilization and a potential addition to their trophy hunting collection.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 123 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Rules Committee, 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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 123 provides for a rule to consider two Congressional Review Act resolutions which will undo burdensome and harmful regulations put into place by the Obama administration during the final hours of his Presidency. The rule brings before the House these resolutions so that Congress may remove, through the proper legislative process, rules promulgated by bureaucrats who remain unaccountable to the American people. This process allows those who are accountable--the elected Representatives in the Congress--to fight for their constituents' rights and liberties.

House Resolution 123 provides for a closed rule for each of the Congressional Review Act resolutions, both H.J. Res. 43 and H.J. Res. 69, the standard procedure for such resolutions, since the sole purpose of each is to remove a harmful regulation from the Federal Register.

The rule allows for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the majority and the minority leader or their designees, for H.J. Res. 43, and 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the Chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources, for H.J. Res. 69. On each resolution contained in the rule, the minority is afforded the customary motion to recommit.

H.J. Res. 43 is a joint resolution which would repeal the Obama administration's midnight rule that takes away States' ability to direct funding within their own borders to certain healthcare providers that conform to the States' values.

In her final days in office, Secretary Mathews Burwell pushed forward a rule that would require States to fund, with public dollars, facilities that perform abortions, potentially against the will of the people of that given State. This flies in the face of the 10th Amendment which grants to States the authority to make such decisions within their borders and to prioritize which healthcare providers should receive funding based on the greatest need in their own communities.

Those of us who care about the carefully crafted Federal system which our Founding Fathers set up, which allows different States to operate differently based upon their own values and priorities, recognize the Obama rule for what it is: a power grab by the Federal Government. This is why the House will take up this resolution today--to continue to fight for states' rights--and will repeal this burdensome regulation that ties the hands of every State legislature and ties the hands of every Governor in the Nation.

H.J. Res. 69 is a Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal an overreaching regulation by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service which usurps Alaska's ability to manage its own lands within its own borders. Federal law has long recognized that Alaska--that Alaska--and her elected officials are in the best position to make the decisions on what actions to permit on the public lands in that State, whether those lands are Federal, State, or private.

Despite this long precedent, codified by Congress in the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act, the Obama administration moved forward in its waning days with a rule that imposes Federal restrictions on lands that have been, up until the end of the Obama administration, successfully regulated by the State of Alaska. Like H.J. Res. 43, this resolution recognizes the important 10th Amendment protections put in place by the Founding Fathers in our Constitution which protects states' rights to govern within their own borders.

The Congressional Review Act is an important tool in maintaining accountability at the Federal level. Its necessity has never been more apparent than over the past few weeks where this Congress has needed to step in and remove burdensome and unbalanced regulations put in place by President Obama and his team just as they were walking out the door.

House Republicans today will stand up for the rights of our constituents against an out-of-control Federal bureaucracy. I urge my colleagues to support today's rule and the two underlying Congressional Review Act resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out that H.J. Res. 43 would repeal the Obama administration's rule and allow States to enjoy the freedom and flexibility to distribute title X grant money in a way that serves the needs of their constituents.

Just in the way of background, December 16, 2016, the Obama administration finalized a rule that prevents States from eliminating abortion providers from title X grant distributions. Title X is a family planning program authorized in 1970, and was intended to provide family planning services to low-income women. The Obama rule was widely perceived as an attempt by the Obama administration to require States to fund Planned Parenthood, the Nation's largest abortion business.

Prior to the Obama administration's rule, States were free to direct their title X funds to healthcare providers that did not participate in abortion. When States had this freedom, they were able to choose to invest in women's health care instead of investing in Big Abortion.

States should be able to choose to prioritize family planning funds to health clinics that offer a full range of healthcare services, including family planning, but do not participate in abortion.

States can fully support family planning and other health services without funding abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood only comprises 13 percent of approximately 4,100 title X service sites.

Redirecting funds away from abortion providers does not reduce funds for the title X program. When States set criteria that eliminates abortion providers from title X distributions, those funds are then directed to other clinics.

Eighty-seven percent of current title X service sites are comprised of local health departments, local hospitals, and Federally qualified health centers.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I reference a letter that was sent to Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy by a number of sports-related organizations.

They say: ``We write representing organizations that collectively include millions of wildlife conservationists . . . wildlife enthusiasts, and wildlife scientists, in strong support of H.J. Res. 49 from Cong. Young of Alaska. . . . Our community exhausted all Executive Branch appeals and remedies urging the FWS to slow down the Proposed Rule, and revise it to reflect a proposal mutually agreed to by the State of Alaska and the FWS; all to no end. It is time for Congress to nullify this final rule.''

They go on to say: ``This final rule boldly preempts the authority of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to manage wildlife for both recreational and subsistence hunting on NWRs, which authority of the state is affirmed by Congress in the Alaska Statehood Act, the Alaska National Interests Land Conservation Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. The FWS final rule was premised on a meeting as a priority the FWS policy on Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health. . . . Many members of our organizations enjoy Alaska's bounty of fish and wildlife resources and their habitats for unrivaled hunting, fishing and outdoor experiences. The sustainable management of these natural resources needs to be led by the State working in cooperation with the FWS. We urge that you favorably consider H.J. Res. 49 which will restore the jurisdictional state- federal relationship as Congress has previously directed.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter written to the Honorable Sylvia Mathews Burwell signed by 110 Members of the House and Senate to express strong opposition to the Department of Health and Human Services' September 7, 2016, notice of proposed rulemaking titled ``Compliance with Title X Requirements by Project Recipients in Selecting Subrecipients.''

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, September 23, 2016.

Hon. Sylvia Mathews Burwell,

Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Burwell, We write to express our strong

opposition to the Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS) September 7, 2016, notice of proposed rulemaking titled

``Compliance with Title X Requirements by Project Recipients

in Selecting Subrecipients.'' Although we appreciate the

Department's intent to follow proper regulatory procedure

pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, HHS's purpose

for engaging in the rulemaking appears on its face to be an

attempt to subvert the will of elected representatives.

Moreover, apart from the Department's impetus for the

notice of proposed rulemaking, we also question whether the

Department's stated rationale adequately supports its

conclusion that providers with a reproductive health focus

are more ``effective'' than other health providers that offer

comprehensive care for women and men. Nowhere in the proposed

notice of rulemaking does HHS clearly define what it means to

provide Title X services in an ``effective'' manner. It does

appear to assert that a number of factors--such as the range

of contraceptive methods on-site, the number of clients in

need of publicly funded family planning services served, and

the availability of preconception care--distinguish providers

with a reproductive health focus as more ``effective'' and

``high quality'' than other types of providers. However, that

list of factors falls far short of all of the attributes and

recommendations included in the Centers for Disease Control

and Office of Population Affairs report entitled ``Providing

Quality Family Planning Services: Recommendations of CDC and

the US Office of Population Affairs.''

To further complicate the argument about quality and

effectiveness, the data cited in the notice of proposed

rulemaking is not adequate for determining patient outcomes.

The Department relies heavily on utilization and demographic

statistics, but appears to lack hard data regarding actual

patient outcomes and need, as the Department does not require

grantees to track patients or verify their income. As you

know, the issue of inadequate data has previously been raised

by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), after the HHS Office of

Family Planning in 2007 asked IOM to provide a critical

review of the Title X Family Planning Program. In addition to

finding ``no clear, evidence-based process for establishing

or revising program priorities and guidelines,'' IOM stated

the following in its May 2009 Report Brief:

``The committee concludes that the program does not collect

all the data needed to monitor and evaluate its impact.

Therefore, the committee proposes a comprehensive framework

to evaluate the program and assess how well clinics meet the

family planning needs of the program's clients. The committee

concludes that additional data will be needed in the areas of

client needs, structure, process, and outcomes in order to

assess the program's overall progress.''

We welcome evidence that this recommendation has been fully

adopted, but are unaware of any clear evidence confirming

that to be the case. If HHS cannot clearly define an

``effective'' or ``high quality'' provider, it is unclear to

us how state and local project grantees are supposed to do so

in order to comply with this proposed rule. It is also

therefore unclear how HHS will be able to accurately

determine in every case whether state or local project

recipients--who are generally closer to and more familiar

with subrecipients and the patient base in their geographical

region--have considered inappropriate criteria in evaluating

subrecipients. Rarely do the American people benefit when the

federal government attempts to substitute its judgment for

that of state or local governments--particularly when the

criteria used to inform that judgment are unclear, and that

judgment is not supported by coherent and impartial facts.

Finally, if HHS is going to assert the authority to adapt

its rules in order to address changing circumstances, we

implore HHS to consider the recent general shift in health

care policy toward comprehensive care. As HHS states on its

website, in addition to assisting individuals and couples in

planning and spacing births, part of the mission of Title X

is to contribute to ``improved health for women and

infants.'' HHS's suggestion that subrecipients like federally

qualified health centers--which provide greater preventive

and primary health care services than providers with a

reproductive health focus--are per se less ``effective'' than

providers with a reproductive health focus does not comport

with that stated mission.

We urge HHS to reconsider this overreaching and ill-

supported rule. We will continue to closely monitor this

proposed rulemaking, and intend to submit this letter as a

formal comment. We look forward to a detailed response from

your Department.

Sincerely,

Joni K. Ernst,

United States Senator.

Diane Black,

United States Congressman.

Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Bill

Cassidy (R-LA), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Steve

Daines (R-MT), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Deb Fischer (R-NE), James

Inhofe (R-OK), James Lankford (R-OK), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jerry

Moran (R-KS), Jim Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Marco

Rubio (R-FL), Ben Sasse (R-NE), Tim Scott (R-SC), David

Vitter (R-LA).

In addition, Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL), Rick Allen

(R-GA), Brian Babin (R-TX), Lou Barletta (R-PA), Andy Barr

(R-KY), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN),

Charles Boustany, Jr. (R-LA), Kevin Brady (R-TX), Michael

Burgess (R-TX), Earl ``Buddy'' Carter (R-GA), Tom Cole (R-

OK), Chris Collins (R-NY), Doug Collins (R-GA), Mike Conaway

(R-TX), Ron DeSantis (R-FL), Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), Jeff

Duncan (R-SC), John Duncan, Jr. (R-TN).

Stephen Fincher (R-TN), Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN), John

Fleming, (R-LA), Bill Flores (R-TX), Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE),

Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Bob Gibbs (R-OH),

Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Trey Gowdy (R-SC),

Tom Graves (R-GA), Glenn Grothman (R-WI), Andy Harris (R-MD),

Vicky Hartzler (R-MO), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Jody Hice (R-

GA), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Bill Huizenga (R-MI), Randy

Hultgren (R-IL), Lynn Jenkins (R-KS).

Bill Johnson (R-OH), Sam Johnson (R-TX), Walter Jones (R-

NC), Mike Kelly (R-PA), Trent Kelly (R-MS), Steve King (R-

IA), Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Robert E.

Latta (R-OH), Daniel Lipinski (D-IL), Barry Loudermilk (R-

GA), Mia Love (R-UT), Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO), Kenny

Marchant (R-TX), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Rep. Mark

Meadows (R-NC), John Moolenaar (R-MI), Markwayne Mullin (R-

OK), Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), Pete Olson (R-TX).

Steven Palazzo (R-MS), Gary Palmer (AL), Steve Pearce (R-

NM), Collin Peterson (D-MN), Robert Pittenger (R-NC), Joe

Pitts (R-PA), Ted Poe (R-TX), Bill Posey (R-FL), Tom Price

(R-GA), John Ratcliffe (R-TX), Martha Roby (R-AL), Phil Roe

(R-TN), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Peter Roskam (R-IL), Keith

Rothfus (R-PA), David Rouzer (R-NC), Steve Scalise (R-LA),

Austin Scott (R-GA).

James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI), Pete Sessions (R-TX), John

Shimkus (R-IL), Adrian Smith (R-NE), Chris Smith (R-NJ), Ann

Wagner (R-MO), Tim Walberg (R-MI), Randy Weber (R-TX), Brad

Wenstrup (R-OH), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Kevin Yoder (R-KS), and

Ted Yoho (R-FL).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for the consideration of two critical Congressional Review Act resolutions to repeal burdensome Federal regulations dropped on the doorstep of the American people in the waning hours of the Obama administration. The rules the House will be voting to repeal today would infringe upon states' rights to govern themselves within their own borders and would impose new Federal requirements and oversight in contravention of the 10th Amendment. This is why removing these regulations is critical. It is critical to maintaining the proper State-Federal balance that our Founding Fathers so carefully crafted in our Constitution.

I thank Representative Diane Black and Representative Don Young for their work on these pieces of legislation to protect states' rights. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the two underlying resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, many times as our Members in the House travel throughout our districts, we are often asked: What is being done in the House? What is being accomplished?

Well, this afternoon we are going to take a few minutes and allow you to hear directly from the Members, something that we like to call the People's Night. This is the people's House, so from time to time we like to bypass any of the outlets and talk directly to the American people.

Now, a lot of people might not know specifically what has been going on in the House. Well, I think these visuals may aid in specifically talking about some of the things that we are accomplishing.

For example, if you will see the chart, this chart lists the House- passed bills to date. It also includes the last four Presidents. As you can see, the House of the 115th Congress has passed 158 pieces of legislation; 158 bills we have sent to the Senate or to the President.

The House isn't the only one that has been busy. Our President has been busy. In fact, if you will notice this chart behind, you will notice that we are also at a record pace if you look at the last four, five Presidents. Of these bills, the President has signed 37 bills into law, compared with the next most, which was George Herbert Walker Bush many years ago, with 35.

That is what the House is working on; it is what we are working with the Senate, we are working with the President.

But this afternoon I want you to hear directly from some of the Members themselves who have been very instrumental not only in what we have accomplished, but also some of the things that we are looking forward to accomplishing over the next few months.

The first person I would like to introduce to you is our chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Jeb Hensarling. Representative Hensarling is from Texas' Fifth District and has been instrumental in doing something that we have been promising and trying to accomplish for many years.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield to Chairman Jeb Hensarling, my good friend.

Thank you, Chairman Hensarling. Most people would not describe your role as a small part in making sure that people have more opportunities in our financial industry.

Not that we are showing Texas any partiality this evening, but our second Representative is a former Federal prosecutor from the great State of Texas, and many would consider one of the top conservatives in all of the United States Congress, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ratcliffe), my friend, is here to talk about the CFPB, among some other issues. So without further ado, I yield to Mr. Ratcliffe.

I thank Representative Ratcliffe for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, once again, if people are watching at home or are gathering here today, I want to remind them that, many times--Members of Congress, when you go back home, you hear a lot of times: Do your job; get things done.

And as I reflect your attention again to our chart here this evening, we can talk a little bit about what we have passed in the House: 158, the most in several different administrations.

However, even though we are going to talk tonight a little about what we have done and what we look forward to, we are not stopping with 158, we are not stopping with the 37 that have been signed into law. We are looking forward to doing some new things.

I think one of the best people to talk about something that we are excited about is certainly somebody that I call a friend, a fellow member, a colleague from North Carolina, someone who allows me to tag along into NASCAR country from time to time, a real friend of the people, someone who I have learned that will tell you the truth no matter what you ask. It is my privilege to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Hudson for his passion about that.

Speaking of passion, in the 2\1/2\ years that I have served in the United States Congress, there are Members who work on different projects, different concerns, different issues. I will tell you

someone who I have really grown to love and appreciate, someone who has lived it out on the battlefield as he has worked to literally put veterans back together as a surgeon on the battlefield, someone who understands and has worked well into the life arena, and that is Dr. Brad Wenstrup, a fellow steering committee member on the Republican Steering Committee.

Without further ado, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, Dr. Wenstrup, to please share what is on his heart today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Wenstrup. I appreciate his passionate plea.

Speaking of life, one of the most outstanding voices that I have gotten a chance to meet, someone who, without compromise, unashamedly talks about the value and the worth of an unborn child is Representative Trent Franks from Arizona. He is here today to talk about a future bill, hopefully one that we can add to this total of 37 in the not too distant future.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), someone who is a warrior in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Franks as he continues to stand year after year in fighting and standing up for the unborn child.

Many times you get to meet some wonderful people here in the United States Congress. And someone asked me the other day: Who is a strong Member? Who is someone who is willing to stand up?

I guess they might have thought I would have said the Speaker or the majority leader, as well they do in their own right. When I think of somebody willing to engage, it is the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black). She is not just known in the Sixth District; she is known throughout all of Tennessee as far as being willing to stand up for those who cannot stand up and protect themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Black.

When we talk about what is getting done, I want to remind our audience this evening, Mr. Speaker, that our President, even without a full Cabinet, has been busy taking time to make sure that what the House and the Senate are sending him is being signed into law.

As you can see on my chart this evening, 37, that is the most. You have to go back. In fact, the last four Presidents haven't equalled that total. And 158 bills from the House have been passed.

One of the things that has been promised by this administration and by Members of Congress is to make sure that we are doing everything we can to take care of a very important segment of our population, and that is our veterans.

It wasn't long after I arrived 2\1/2\ years ago that I had a chance to meet someone. Now, as a former pastor, you can always tell the character and integrity of someone when they have gone through a hardship.

I met Dr. Phil Roe after he had lost a loved one in his life. He could have gone home, but he had a mission to complete, and that is to stand up for those veterans who needed standing up. A former physician himself, he was willing to come back and continue to fight. What a privilege it is to serve with the chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Dr. Phil Roe.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Roe and appreciate his continued service. It is a privilege to certainly work with him in the House.

One of our newest Members who came in the 115th class, a gentleman by

the name of Jim Banks--in fact, he is the only new Member serving on the Republican Steering Committee. Some would describe him as a quick study, I guess, but he is here this evening to specifically talk about continued VA accountability and the Department of Defense readiness.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Banks, and I appreciate this is such an important issue that he is battling.

Once again, this evening, Mr. Speaker, we are reminding that tonight is the People's Night here in the people's House. We are focusing in on the work of the Members of Congress.

As you can see in our chart this evening, 158 bills have been passed through Congress. So many times we continue to hear: What is Congress working on?

Well, not only have we passed these 158, we are still working on passing things in the future.

One of the great Members from South Carolina, Mr. Jeff Duncan, is someone who has a genuine heart and passion for others, but also has a wonderful heart for the outdoors, as he is currently chairman of the Sportsmen's Caucus.

Without further ado, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Duncan.

Many times in Congress you hear sometimes maybe big words or crazy words, words like ``appropriations'' or ``appropriators.'' We have one of those appropriators with us tonight, a strong conservative from the State of Georgia, my friend, Representative Tom Graves, who is going to talk a little bit about his proposal and an idea that I believe helps us continue adding to this number of 158.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Graves.

It doesn't take you long, around the Halls of Congress, to see someone who has a genuine heart for service, someone who can quickly give up his chair, or someone who sees someone that is without. Sometimes I think that is a person who has served in faith many years, and sometimes I just think that is part of the natural tendency of a person who certainly has a heart, not only for God but to serve others.

I can think of nobody who better fits that description than our chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, here to talk a little bit about his passion and his vision for tax reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Brady for his comments. It is an honor to have him with us this evening.

We have talked a little bit about veterans tonight. Former veteran, chaplain, and pastor, Representative Collins, we would love for you to talk about something that is part of that 158 pieces of legislation that has been passed, what we called the REINS Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Collins for his comments.

As we continue to talk about some of the things that have been accomplished and also things that we are looking forward to, it is a wonderful opportunity to introduce my friend, Representative Jody Hice from the great State of Georgia, a fellow former pastor who still enjoys those opportunities, I am sure, when you have a few. But tonight I want him to talk about the Free Speech Fairness Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jody B. Hice).

I thank Representative Hice and I appreciate his courage in being willing to stand and speak out.

My great friend, Representative Gary Palmer, from the home of the University, Crimson Tide Alabama football, great to have you here tonight talking about a very important issue, the Agency Accountability Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), who will close us out this evening.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 123, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 43) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule submitted by Secretary of Health and Human Services relating to compliance with title X requirements by project recipients in selecting subrecipients, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.J. Res. 43, currently under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my resolution of disapproval, H.J. Res. 43, which uses the authority of the Congressional Review Act to overturn the Obama administration's 11th- hour rule forcing States like Tennessee to fund abortion providers.

I want to begin today by stipulating very clearly what this resolution is about because, while I am unapologetically pro-life, you don't have to be in order to support this resolution. You just have to believe in the Tenth Amendment.

Despite the histrionics you may hear on the other side of the aisle today, with today's resolution, we are not, we are not, one, voting to defund Planned Parenthood in any way, shape, or form; we are not voting to cut title X funding; and we are not voting to restrict abortion rights.

Madam Speaker, we are simply voting today to affirm the rights of States to fund the healthcare providers that best suit their needs, without fear of reprisal from their own Federal Government.

I didn't realize this was a partisan issue. It shouldn't be, because that is how the title X grant program functioned for more than 45 years, until the Obama administration decided to leave this parting gift to abortion industry on its way out the door.

For me, this is a personal issue. As a registered nurse, I know that vulnerable women seeking true comprehensive care deserve better than abortion-centric facilities like Planned Parenthood. So, as a State legislator, I worked within my authority to make sure that Tennessee honored the will of

our pro-life populace and steered our State's share of title X dollars away from healthcare providers that performed abortion.

As a result, our share of title X grants have been sent exclusively to the Tennessee Department of Health, which then allocates them to the county health departments and other qualified providers that protect the lives of the most vulnerable. That was Tennessee's right, and it has been able to exercise that right while protecting access to comprehensive care for those who are most in need.

As a matter of fact, according to HHS' own 2015 title X Family Planning Annual Report, our State provided care under title X to more than 75,000 Tennesseeans. That means that we served even more citizens than the more populated States like Michigan and Virginia.

But in December of last year, the Obama administration decided to intervene, setting unprecedented new parameters on how States must select title X grantees that were specifically designed to prop up its political allies in the abortion industry.

With my resolution, I am proposing that we go back just a few short weeks prior to December 15, 2016, the day before the Obama administration decided to reconfigure this 45-year-old program with its ill-conceived order. That is all my resolution does is to take us back 45 years to the way the program has operated.

I urge my colleagues to give States the freedom and the flexibility to take care of their citizens the best way that they know how by voting ``yes'' on this H.J. Res. 43.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who has been a champion for life and been fighting for life for a long time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), a freshman and a physician.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer), who is the chairman of our Republican Study Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), who is my classmate.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem), who is my fellow Ways and Means Committee member.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), who is a fellow Ways and Means Committee member and advocate for children.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), chair of our Values Action Team.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Thomas J. Rooney).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Banks), one of our freshman Members.

Madam Speaker, I must, once again, talk about what this resolution really does. This resolution empowers States. It empowers States that are able to choose to invest in women's health care over abortion by sending those title X dollars to clinics that do not destroy innocent life. My colleagues on the other side talked about how this is destructive to women's health. I want to just mention that the true destruction to women's health is abortion. That is the little girl who is aborted that will never know about being a woman.

This bill does nothing to prohibit States from deciding where to best use their dollars, but in States such as mine in Tennessee for the last 6 years, who have made that decision to send their dollars to facilities that they believe give the best women's health care, comprehensive health care, to over 75,000 women in our State, more than many States that surround us that have larger populations.

If this were prohibiting women from getting services, we wouldn't be so successful with providing services to more than 75,000 women in our State. We haven't seen a decrease in services. We have seen an increase in services. If you were to ask these women what they thought about services that they are getting in these other facilities such as Department of Health and federally qualified health centers, you would see they are very satisfied because they get comprehensive services that go beyond what places like Planned Parenthood can even provide for them. They do mammograms, they do procedures if there are cancer cells found in a woman's cervix.

So this whole ruse that this is a war on women and that we are taking away women's right to healthcare services is a ruse. All this does is to say, if a State like Tennessee decides this is the best place to give the best quality of care for a woman, and hopefully their babies and their children--which, if you go to these clinics, you will see them all running around, they have life--it just gives them the choice to do that.

Don't take away that choice from my State. Don't punish my State because we do what we believe is the best thing for women's health.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

That is correct.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I include in the Record letters from March for Life Action, Christian Medical and Dental Associations, and United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

March for Life Action,

Washington, DC, February 15, 2017.

Representative,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of March for Life Action and

the hundreds of thousands of our supporters and fellow

marchers, I urge you to vote in favor of H.J. Res. 43.,

sponsored by Rep. Diane Black (R-TN). When H.J. Res. 43 comes

to the House floor for a vote we will be scoring the vote in

our annual scorecard for the First Session of the 115th

Congress.

In the waning days of his Administration President Barack

Obama, using his power at Health and Human Services, issued a

rule that locked down federal grants for abortion-giant

Planned Parenthood but also usurped state's rights by

blocking states seeking to defund the abortion industry and

redirect funds to county health departments, community health

centers and other clinics that put women's health above an

abortion agenda.

H.J. Res. 43 does not reduce funds for family planning, but

allows states to assure that taxpayer funds do not support or

underwrite abortion providers when so many Americans have

ethical reservations about this procedure. The time has come

for a clean break between government support of family

planning activities and abortion.

Again, on behalf of March for Life Action, I strongly

encourage your vote for H.J. Res. 43. March for Life Action

will score this vote in our annual scorecard.

Sincerely,

Thomas McClusky,

Vice President of Government Affairs.

Madam Speaker, the 10th Amendment of the Constitution reads pretty clearly to me: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''

I understand that there is a diversity of views represented in this Chamber on matters of health care and human life. I am not asking my colleagues to set those views aside with this vote. I am simply asking them not to substitute their judgment for the will of the States.

With this resolution, we are letting States care for their citizens the best way they know, just as they have had that ability for the past 45 years, and we are maintaining access to care for women and families.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.