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

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, we are not even a full month into the new Presidency. Yet, the President and the Republicans in Congress have already launched numerous attacks on women's health and access to care. Here's just a few of the examples aside from today.

They are charging ahead to dismantle the Affordable Care Act without making any promises to preserve the vital protections for women that are in that bill.

They imposed and dramatically expanded the global gag rule, which harms women's access to health care around the world.

And just after the historic Women's March, House Republicans passed H.R. 7, an extreme bill that effectively bans private insurance companies from covering comprehensive healthcare services.

But here we are again today, with another bill that threatens access to family planning care for millions of our most vulnerable citizens by attacking title X. Title X is the only Federal program dedicated solely to family planning, which includes a range of services that help women and their partners prepare for pregnancy and ensure healthy spacing between births.

Title X helps 4 million people who are uninsured. Title X centers also play an important role in reducing unintended pregnancy, and title X centers are also major points of access in our safety net.

Six in 10 women who go to a title X center consider it their major source of health care. What this rule that Republicans want to roll back does is it simply reinforces longstanding requirements that say that States cannot discriminate against providers for reasons that are unrelated to their qualifications to perform family planning services when distributing title X funding. In other words, if an organization provides abortions with its own private money but it qualifies for title X, it can still get that funding.

Now I keep hearing from my colleagues that this violates states' rights, but that completely ignores how Federal programs work. Virtually all Federal funding opportunities require a State to adhere to certain standards to ensure policy goals are met, and that is exactly what this rule did.

Republicans will also argue that community health centers can fill all the gaps created and accessed by denying these centers title X funding. This claim has been debunked on numerous occasions.

For example, in 21 percent of counties with a Planned Parenthood center, Planned Parenthood is the only safety net provider in the area. That is why the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated, if Planned Parenthood were defunded, as many as 390,000 women would lose access to care, and 650,000 women would have reduced access. That is why repealing this rule is a serious problem.

Just this afternoon I read a quote, and here's what it said: ``Patients and doctors should be making the big decisions--not government bureaucrats.''

Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Let me say that again. ``Patients and doctors should be making the big decisions--not government bureaucrats.''

Who said this?

Margaret Sanger? No.

Cecile Richards? No.

Hillary Clinton? No.

The person who said this this afternoon is the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan. I couldn't agree with him any more when it comes to title X family planning money. This should be made by patients and their doctors, not by bureaucrats in Washington.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel), the chair of the Democratic Women's Working Group.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side?

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Jayapal).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Lawrence).

Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the other side is reserving its time to close. Is that correct?

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Madam Speaker, we hear today this really isn't about denying women and families access to family planning and birth control because States would just simply take that title X money and put it somewhere else. Unfortunately, this seems to be a bit of magical thinking. Even the Congressional Budget Office said that as many as 390,000 women would lose access to care and 650,000 women would have reduced access if legislation like this passed.

The fact of the matter is you can't simply shift all of these people from title X family planning centers like Planned Parenthood to community health centers, as the other side asserts. For one thing, 69 percent of the community health centers actually refer patients to family planning providers like Planned Parenthood, and only 19 percent of community health centers report that their largest sites both prescribe and dispense all types of contraceptive methods. Only half of community health centers that received title X funding provide IUDs and other types of long-acting birth control, the most effective type of birth control, so you can't just shift everybody else someplace else.

In fact, the National Association of Community Health Centers itself said that they could not treat all of the patients that Planned Parenthood now has if this legislation went through. Let's just call this joint resolution what it is. It is an attempt to take away important family planning resources from the women and families of America.

Now, I think if we all support title X when the annual appropriations bill comes up this year, I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to please join me and my colleagues in an effort to increase title X funding. In all the years I have been in Congress, I have seen attempt after attempt not only to reduce abortion availability, but also to stop family planning services. I think that is something we could agree with on, and I think we could do that.

So in the meantime, let's make sure that the women of America can get access to the family planning they need, and let's continue to give family planning money to all of these interests to do that.

Again, I would like to reiterate, we have no family funding for abortions. That is the law. I don't like the law, but that is the law. We are talking about family planning and title X. That needs to be preserved and enhanced. Vote ``no'' on this joint resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. President, I came to the floor to join my colleague and friend Senator Murray to say that I, too, am ready for this fight to oppose S.J. Res. 13, which would allow the discrimination against Title X family planning providers. This is a misguided measure that would leave millions of women and families with fewer healthcare options. It would drastically decrease women's access to basic primary and preventative health services, including lifesaving cancer screenings and HIV testing.

Make no mistake, as Senator Murray said, the primary target of this legislation is Planned Parenthood. For years now, Republican leaders in Congress have tried to keep women from choosing Planned Parenthood as their healthcare provider--this at a time when Planned Parenthood serves millions of women nationwide, including nearly 12,000 women in New Hampshire, my home State. Most of the women in New Hampshire have incomes below or near the poverty line. Many of those women live in rural areas where they don't have other options for healthcare coverage.

The sad irony of this attack on Planned Parenthood is that study after study has shown that cutting back access to birth control and to other family planning methods actually increases the number of abortions. So I understand that opponents are interested in supporting this legislation because they think Planned Parenthood provides abortions, but the coverage Planned Parenthood is providing to women in New Hampshire and across this country with Federal dollars does not allow for abortions. So what we are doing is taking away women's access to contraception and to other family planning services and saying: You have no choice now.

More than ever right now, facts matter. Research matters. Talking away women's access to birth control and family planning will lead to more abortions, not fewer abortions. Yet this legislation is part and parcel of a broader national campaign against Planned Parenthood, whose clinics have been the target of vilification, of threats, and of violence. In October of last year, the Planned Parenthood clinic in Claremont, NH, was vandalized not once but twice. The second attack, a breaking-and-entering incident, caused extensive damage. It forced the clinic to close for 5 weeks.

I have great admiration for the courage of doctors and other healthcare providers at the Claremont clinic. Despite threats and attacks, they are determined to continue serving women across the Connecticut River Valley, many of whom have no alternative to the Claremont clinic. They are typical of the dedicated healthcare professionals at Planned Parenthood clinics all across our country.

The good news is that, according to poll after poll, the American people across the political spectrum--from Independents, to Libertarians, to Democrats, to Republicans--strongly support Planned Parenthood and oppose efforts to take away women's ability to choose Planned Parenthood as their healthcare provider.

At last night's Presidential address to Congress, I was honored to have as my guest Jennifer Frizzell of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. Jen knows exactly what is at stake for women if President Trump and Republican leaders succeed in closing hundreds of Planned Parenthood clinics across the United States.

So let's be clear again: Supporting family planning clinics is not about abortion, which by law is never funded by taxpayer dollars-- something that I think is often misrepresented by some of our colleagues here in Congress. What this is about is ensuring that American women have access to the basic healthcare they need. For 40 percent of women, their visits to a family planning center is the only care they receive annually. In 2015 alone, Title X provided basic primary and preventive healthcare services, such as Pap tests, breast exams, birth control, and HIV testing, to more than 4 million women and men at nearly 4,000 health centers.

I am sure that every one of our colleagues is receiving letters and emails and phone calls from constituents on this issue. They are pleading with us not to take away their access to Planned Parenthood and the healthcare they trust and depend on.

I received this message from Caitlin Parnell of Hampstead, NH. She said:

As a young mother of a 2-year-old, my husband and I knew we

wanted to wait to have more children. We were both working

full time but barely making ends meet. The companies we

worked for offered health insurance, but they were small

companies, and the monthly cost was well more than we could

afford. So we went without. With no insurance, I turned to

Planned Parenthood for birth control. With the sliding pay

scale, I was able to get exams and birth control within my

budget. We were able to decide the best time to have more

children, which also allowed us to responsibly manage our

finances as well. An unplanned pregnancy at that point would

have destroyed the little financial stability we had. I don't

know where our family would be without Planned Parenthood.

Karla Canderhoof is a stay-at-home mother in Newfields, NH. She wrote this:

After being diagnosed with ovarian cyst issues that caused

debilitating pain, I turned to Planned Parenthood for

treatment. In my case, the treatment for ovarian cysts was

birth control. At the time (during my college years) I could

not afford the cost of birth control due to my lack of

insurance. But Planned Parenthood gave me birth control free

of charge.

Amanda Arel of Rochester, NH, sent this message:

During the ages of 22 to 25, I utilized Planned Parenthood

for my annual exams and birth control. As I did not have

insurance and was in college, I was not able to afford most

medical care. Planned Parenthood not only provided me with

essential care, they made it very comfortable for me and were

very knowledgeable and answered any questions I had. They

provided birth control for me that, if it wasn't for them,

I would not have been able to get, at a cost I could

afford.

I still support Planned Parenthood because they provide safe, affordable healthcare for all, and that is so important.

We need to listen to our constituents, those who are speaking out in passionate support of Planned Parenthood and other family planning clinics.

As Senator Murray said so eloquently, this is about respecting women's access to healthcare services, including those millions of vulnerable women who have nowhere else to turn for essential care. This is also about respecting women's constitutionally protected right to make our own reproductive choices. We must not allow Congress to strip away Federal investments in family planning clinics by allowing States to discriminate against providers like Planned Parenthood.

I urge our Republican colleagues, don't bring S.J. Res. 13 to the floor. If it does come to the floor, I certainly intend to join in the fight with my colleagues--Senator Murray, Senator Blumenthal, and so many other Democrats and, I believe, Republicans--to defeat this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to oppose S.J. Res. 13, which is a Congressional Review Act resolution to undo the regulations which protect title X health centers. I believe this resolution, although well meaning, will have the opposite effect of its intention.

I particularly want to discuss the organization known as Planned Parenthood, but, more generally, these women's health centers, these title X health centers, No. 1, provide many healthcare services to women, particularly low-income women. They are the choice of those women. They are a place they have chosen to go to receive their healthcare treatment.

I do think that one of the problems with this whole debate is the use of the term ``funding'' of Planned Parenthood. What we are talking about here is not funding, as in a budget line or a budget provision that says: Planned Parenthood gets $58 million or $100 million or $10, whatever it is. That is not the way it works. What we are talking about is reimbursement for women's healthcare services provided on an individual, case-by-case basis, and this does not include abortion. It does not include abortion.

These organizations in Maine--Planned Parenthood, for example, serves 10,000 people. Ten thousand women choose to get their healthcare services from Planned Parenthood.

The other piece of this debate I have never understood is why those who are opposed to abortion would be so opposed to organizations that allow women to make choices about pregnancies and provide contraception and contraception advice, which statistically we know reduces abortion.

In Maine, because of the access to organizations like Planned Parenthood and other women's healthcare clinics, we have seen our teen pregnancy rate drop 58 percent in the last 20 years or so--58 percent. That is a significant reduction, and it is attributable, at least in some significant part, to the availability of the services provided by these organizations.

It has always struck me as ironic, in the extreme, that someone who says they are against abortion should be against an agency that provides contraception and family planning services that prevent pregnancy and therefore prevent abortion.

I subscribe to President Clinton's formulation that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. It should not be something that is chosen just casually--and of course it isn't. This is a terribly difficult decision for a women, but that is not the subject today. The subject today is curtailing the reimbursement for women's healthcare services to an organization or organizations that may also provide abortion services.

It is contrary to the very idea of trying to prevent abortion, but it is also denying healthcare services of choice to thousands of women in Maine and millions across the country.

I have sat in this body for 4 years and heard people talking about how consumers and patients should be able to choose their physicians, they should be able to choose their healthcare options. This was a basic principle. It is one of the arguments we have heard as we have been discussing other healthcare

issues in this body. This Congressional Review Act provision would take away that choice. I think that is a great disservice to those citizens, many of whom are low income, many of whom are covered by Medicaid, many of whom do not have private health insurance. To take this step that this resolution would entail would be very shortsighted, and I believe it is a violation of the rights of those people to choose their healthcare providers.

It also does not achieve the ends that the sponsors want to achieve. That is why I believe that this resolution--although it may be denominated as something to do with being anti-abortion, I think it is just the opposite. If this resolution passes and these healthcare centers under Title X, including Planned Parenthood, are unable to deliver these services, there will be more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions. I think that is a sad and unfortunate outcome to be perpetrated by people who say they are trying to oppose abortion.

Planned Parenthood provides women's healthcare services. It provides contraceptive services. I know the people in Maine who work for this agency, and I know this is a terribly controversial issue, but I believe that if what we want to do is minimize the number of abortions, then it makes no sense whatsoever to somehow indiscriminately strike out at the funding of the agencies that provide healthcare services.

Nobody in this body is talking about Federal funds for abortion. That is not what the issue is. If that were the issue, this would be an entirely different debate. The issue is taking reimbursement away from the Planned Parenthood clinic or Title X clinic for mammograms, cervical exams, or other women's healthcare services. Why would we want to do that in the name of achieving some other goal that won't even be achieved? In fact, it will be made a more widespread issue.

I hope the Senate will realize that whatever the motivation behind this provision is, it just makes no sense. It makes no sense from the point of view of preventing abortion. It makes no sense in terms of the taxpayers. Preventive services, contraceptive services, cost about $200 a patient; a Medicaid birth costs about $10,000. If it is a Medicaid patient, those are taxpayer dollars. We are talking about saving taxpayers money.

This goes to the healthcare system in general: Why would we want to undo prevention, whether prevention of unwanted pregnancies or prevention of a disease? Prevention is part of the solution to the healthcare crisis in this country because of the excessive cost.

Here is a specific case. Again, we are not talking about funding abortions. We are not talking about funding Planned Parenthood. We are not talking about funding these Title X health centers. We are talking about protecting them in terms of their reimbursement for women's health services delivered. That is what this vote is about. If you vote for this, you are voting to take away reimbursement for health services that are necessary to protect the health and well-being of women across this country.

I hope my colleagues will vote no on this resolution, and I believe it will serve the public and it will even serve those people who are concerned most deeply--and I understand--about abortion. If you want fewer abortions, fund Planned Parenthood. It seems to me that is a fairly clear correlation, and it is one we should respect. But we also should respect the rights, needs, and choices of those millions of women who rely on these clinics for their healthcare needs aside from the issue of reproductive rights, just straight healthcare needs. That is what this vote is all about.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership.

This is not about States, and it is not about the Federal Government. It's about women and the rights of women. H.J. Res. 43 could impact nearly 4 million primarily low-income patients that receive family planning services at title X sites, annually, across the United States.

Of those 4 million patients, approximately 69 percent had incomes at or below the Federal poverty line, while 61 percent of those patients claimed the title X clinic as their only regular source of health care. About 60 percent of women who access care from family planning health centers consider it their main source; 4 in 10, it is their only source of care.

Approximately 1.5 million Planned Parenthood patients benefit from the Nation's family planning program. Approximately 20 percent of these patients identify as Hispanic and approximately 50 percent as African Americans.

Every public dollar invested in Planned Parenthood, $7.09 is saved in Medicaid-related costs. Planned Parenthood centers are roughly one- third of the program's clients, although Planned Parenthood health centers comprise 10 percent of the publicly supported safety and family net.

This resolution for which we should vote ``no'' is going to take away money from people who are in need, who need

health care. Where are the Republicans on women's rights?

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 43, a congressional resolution rescinding a rule promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services providing important protections to ensure that women, men, and young people can see trusted reproductive health care providers, like Planned Parenthood, through the Title X family planning program.

I oppose the disapproval resolution because it is nothing more than a blatant attempt to persecute Planned Parenthood and make it easier for the state politicians to take away people's health care, specifically, the four million people who rely on Title X for birth control and other care.

From birth control, to well-woman exams, to cancer screenings, millions of Americans nationwide turn to Planned Parenthood and other safety net reproductive health providers as their trusted source of health care.

Many of these Americans, including low-income women, women of color, and those living in rural areas, are uninsured and rely on important public health programs for affordable health care, including Medicaid and the Title X family planning program.

But their access to health care is under attack across the country because in recent years because politicians in at least 14 states have taken action to block access to care through Title X, willfully ignoring the law, the recommendations of public health experts, and the clear and present need in their communities.

In September 2016, HHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Compliance With Title X Requirements by Project Recipients in Selecting Subrecipients'' aiming to explicitly bar these types of actions.

HHS opened the proposed regulation to public comment, which closed in October 2016 and garnered widespread support, with 91% of the roughly 145,000 responses in favor of the rule.

Madam Speaker, Title X provides lifesaving, preventive care to millions of people and is cost-effective.

Title X helps ensure more than four million persons of low-income have health care in this country.

In fact, Title X is the only way that millions of low-income women or uninsured women have access to birth control, cancer screenings, STI tests, and other basic care.

Eighty-five percent of the people served by Planned Parenthood's family planning program have incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and 48 percent are uninsured.

In 2015 alone, Title X provided nearly 800,000 Pap tests, breast exams to 1 million women, nearly 5 million tests for STIs, and 1 million HIV tests.

About 60 percent of women who access care from a family planning health center consider it their main source of health care; for 4 in 10, it is their only source of care.

Approximately 1.5 million Planned Parenthood patients benefit from the nation's family planning program, 78 percent of whom live with incomes of 150 percent of the federal poverty level or less, the equivalent of $35,775 a year for a family of four in 2014.

Approximately 20 percent of these patients identify as Hispanic; and approximately 15 percent identify as African American.

For every public dollar invested in family planning, $7.09 is saved in Medicaid-related costs; that is savings to both federal and state governments and taxpayers.

Planned Parenthood health centers serve roughly one-third of the program's clients, although Planned Parenthood health centers comprise 10 percent of publicly supported safety net family planning centers.

Planned Parenthood health centers are located in the communities where access to care is most needed.

More than half of Planned Parenthood's health centers across the U.S. are in rural and underserved communities with limited access to health care.

Seventy-five percent of Planned Parenthood patients have incomes at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL).

The idea that other providers could absorb Planned Parenthood's patients has been resoundingly dismissed by experts.

In fact, the American Public Health Association called the idea ``ludicrous.''

Planned Parenthood health centers are also considerably more likely to offer Title X patients a broader range of contraceptive methods than other providers.

In a study of Community Health Centers (CHCs), among CHCs that reported an independent family planning clinic in their largest site's community, 69 percent reported referring their patients to providers specializing in reproductive health services, like Planned Parenthood health centers, for family planning care.

H.J. Res. 43 is a blatant effort to embolden states to try to block women from getting birth control and other preventive care at highly qualified family providers.

By issuing this important protection, the Obama Administration made sure that politicians cannot ignore the law and stand in the way of the care that women need.

I urge all Members to vote No on H.J. Res. 43.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter and article in opposition to this resolution.