SAD Act

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 969, I call up the bill (H.R. 6918) to prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from restricting funding for pregnancy centers, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, right after the Dobbs Supreme Court decision, nearly 100 pregnancy resource centers, pro-life organizations, and churches were smashed, ransacked, vandalized, graffitied, and even firebombed. While the violence has subsided, pregnancy resource centers around the country are still under attack, this time by the Biden administration.

Last year, the Biden administration proposed a rule at the Department of Health and Human Services that blocks States from funding pregnancy resource centers through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program.

These centers exist to provide care and support for pregnant women looking for an alternative to abortion. Mothers can receive help for themselves and the health of their unborn child, including everything from diapers and prenatal vitamins to transportation and parenting classes.

The Biden administration's proposed rule has the potential to impact over 2,700 such centers around the country that in 2019 alone provided medical and material support to over 2 million women and families.

Nothing in the bipartisan law that created TANF gives the Biden administration the authority to unfairly target pregnancy resource centers. In fact, it prohibits the government from restricting TANF funds, yet that is exactly what the Biden administration is trying to do.

This funding is critical to keeping the doors open and providing care for women seeking help. For example, in my home State of Missouri, TANF provides $3 of every $4 the State provides to pregnancy resource centers, where expectant moms can get everything from diapers and food to transportation, parenting skills classes, and prenatal care. These are services that every single expectant mother needs for a healthy pregnancy, and pregnancy resource centers have stepped in to fill these basic needs.

The hypocrisy on the part of the Biden administration could not be more clear. They claim to support a woman's right to choose her own healthcare while at the same time the President is making it harder for moms to choose life for their unborn child so his administration can funnel even more resources to organizations like Planned Parenthood. If this rule takes effect, pregnant women in America will have fewer healthcare options and less access to care.

As tomorrow's March for Life will remind us all, the rights of mothers and the unborn must be protected.

I thank Representative Fischbach for introducing this bill that would end the Biden administration's misguided rule targeting pregnancy resource centers and for her unwavering support of women and the unborn. I also thank Representatives Tenney and Chris Smith for cosponsoring the bill and for their leadership on this issue. Each one has been a tireless fighter to advance the right to life for decades.

I hope that each one of my colleagues will support this legislation, stand up for mothers, and protect the right to life.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), who is the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Yakym).

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

Democrats and the Biden administration are purposely targeting and misrepresenting pregnancy centers in their proposed rule and seeking to intimidate States that fund them.

Pregnancy resource centers play a vital role to both mothers and fathers, empowering them in their decision to choose life for their baby, by providing realistic alternatives in stark contrast to organizations exclusively focused on abortion.

There is no deceit underlying pregnancy centers. They are another option for women who are looking for an alternative to abortion. It is disgraceful that Democrats mischaracterize these organizations in an effort to limit a woman's choice to raise her child.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube).

Mr. Speaker, last year, Missouri provided $6.3 million in TANF funding to pregnancy resource centers. This funding is provided for mothers and fathers for nonmedical support, such as baby clothes and formula, and support for families until the age of 1.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Missouri Department of Social Services to the Administration for Children and Families opposing any restrictions on using TANF for these critical services.

Missouri Department of

Social Services,

November 30, 2023.

Re Strengthening Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

(TANF) as a Safety Net and Work Program (RIN 0970-AC99).

Administration for Children and Families,

Office of Family Assistance,

Washington, DC.

To Whom it May Concern: The Missouri Department of Social

Services (DSS) has reviewed in detail the Notice of Public

Rulemaking (NPRM), RIN 0970-AC99, issued by the

Administration for Children and Families (ACF) on October 2,

2023. Below, please find DSS' comments on the proposed rule.

DSS believes the proposed rule should be modified

significantly before being enacted. Our comments are in three

main areas:

Allowability of youth services designed to break the cycle

of poverty,

Allowability of programs that support pregnant women and

positive outcomes for their children, and

Allowability of using third party expenditures to meet TANF

MOE requirements.

In addition, we emphasize the importance of a phased

implementation to allow states time to adjust to the final

rule, regardless of any revisions made subsequent to the

issuance of the NPRM.

We elaborate on these points separately below.

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

poverty

One of the hallmarks of the TANF program is that it allowed

flexibility for states to best serve the populations in their

states. The 1999 TANF Final Rule, 64 FR 17720 et seq. (April

12, 1999), drives home this point repeatedly in its preamble:

``The law gives States, and federally recognized Indian

tribes, the authority to use Federal welfare funds `in any

manner that is reasonably calculated to accomplish the

purpose' of the new program. It provides them broad

flexibility to set eligibility rules and decide what benefits

are most appropriate. It also enables States to implement

their new programs without getting the `approval' of the

Federal government. In short, it offers States and Tribes an

opportunity to try new, far-reaching changes that can respond

more effectively to the needs of families within their own

unique environments.''

States have used this flexibility to fund a wide range of

programs, including programs focused on serving youth in

afterschool settings. The NPRM suggests that these programs,

which provide a valuable social support and help reduce

school dropout and teen pregnancy rates, would no longer be

allowable except to the extent that ``pregnancy prevention

programming is a part of an ongoing program.'' States did not

make this connection between after-school programs and TANF

Purpose 3 on their own. ACF issued guidance at the outset of

the TANF program that explicitly made the connection between

youth programs and TANF purpose 3:

``A State may use its TANF or MOE funds for services and

benefits that directly lead to (or can be expected to lead

to) the accomplishment of one of these four purposes. For

example, it could fund special initiatives to improve the

motivation, performance, and self-esteem of youth (e.g.,

activities like those included in the HHS Girl Power!

Campaign or sponsored by the Boys and Girls Clubs) because

such initiatives would be expected to reduce school-dropout

and teen pregnancy rates.''

In addition to after-school programs, Missouri's TANF

expenditures have supported in-school initiatives that

support positive youth outcomes. For example, the Jobs for

America's Graduates (JAG) program gives students in selected

at-risk areas the tools needed to make a successful

transition to post-secondary education and meaningful

employment with self-sustaining wages to decrease the need

for government assistance.

The proposed rule would not only impact general youth

programs, but also a state's ability to provide employment

services to teens and older youth who are not yet parents.

ACF-IM-2012-01 speaks to the importance of programming that

supports youth employment and reminds states that ``. . . a

jurisdiction may use TANF and/or MOE funds to serve youth up

through the age of 24 in a subsidized employment program

under TANF statutory purpose one,'' and that TANF funds may

be used whether or not the youth resides in the home of a

parent or relative. Furthermore, the same memorandum speaks

to other allowable activities that support youth in summer

jobs programs, including education and training, supportive

services, transportation for employed persons for the purpose

of attending work or training, counseling and employment

related services, and incentive payments that reward the

participant for achieving a predetermined milestone.

Similarly, the NPRM calls into question the funding of

college scholarships for childless older youth as an

allowable TANF expenditure. Studies have indicated that

higher educational attainment typically translates into a

reduced likelihood of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and increases

the chances the individual will become a supportive member of

a two-parent household. These facts support both TANF

Purposes three and four. However, interpretations of this

research are subjective, and the uncertainty regarding ACF's

acceptance of supporting evidence places a significant risk

on states like Missouri that utilize TANF funds for

scholarships. At a minimum, we contend these expenditures

should be allowable for youth and young adults with

incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.

After 25 years of guidance that reinforces that after-

school and other programs targeting youth and young adults

meet a TANF Purpose, the sudden shift to render these

programs unallowable is illogical and short sighted. The TANF

program was created to help states fund programs that break

the cycle of poverty, and serving youth is one of the proven

ways of doing so.

Missouri strongly encourages ACF to reconsider the proposed

rule and continue to allow states to invest in their youth,

which in turn is an investment in the future.

Allow programs that support pregnant women and positive outcomes for

their children

The NPRM states that--

``Programs that only or primarily provide pregnancy

counseling to women only after they become pregnant likely do

not meet the reasonable person standard because the

connection to preventing and reducing out-of-wedlock

pregnancies is tenuous or non-existent, and therefore do not

accomplish purpose three.''

Missouri funds programs for pregnant women that 1) set up

the unborn/newborn child for success by providing a range of

services and supports; and 2) offer resources to the mother

that decrease the chances of future unwanted pregnancies.

Examples of benefits and services provided through these

comprehensive programs include but are not limited to food,

clothing and supplies related to pregnancy, newborn care and

parenting, housing and utilities, job training and placement,

prenatal care and ultrasound services, medical and mental

health care, transportation, establishing and promoting

responsible paternity, and parenting skills classes.

We contend that these services are allowable under multiple

TANF purposes. And we understand that states will have the

opportunity to provide research or programmatic evidence that

supports these programs' link to a TANF purpose/s. However,

these judgements are subjective, and we are concerned that

decisions of TANF allowability after funds have been expended

place undue risk on state budgets and the comprehensive

nature of the programs. Accordingly, programs that support

pregnant women and positive outcomes for their children

should be clearly allowable and not subject to the reasonable

person test.

Consider allowing third party MOE to count in certain circumstances

The Uniform administrative requirements that govern TANF

explicitly allow third-party spending to count toward a

state's Maintenance of Effort spending, and this was codified

in the TANF regulations as part of the 2008 Final Rule for

the Deficit Reduction Act. The NPRM would continue to allow

third party spending from public entities to count as MOE but

would prohibit the use of nonprofit spending. This change

would severely impact Missouri, and we urge ACF to

reconsider.

Missouri has a unique set up with the non-profit agencies

that provide MOE toward the state's TANF claim in that the

same agencies also receive TANF block grant funding. Missouri

has established as matching requirement, whereby the TANF

funds received are contingent on the non-profits also

providing documented MOE spending. This cost-sharing

responsibility has created high quality public-private

partnerships, and the state's investment of TANF funds has

allowed the non-profits to expand services to low-income

families.

Missouri urges ACF to consider allowing third party MOE

from non-profit agencies if those dollars are part of a

matching requirement for receiving TANF funds. In this way,

the non-profit community will be invested in

helping further the purposes of TANF alongside the state.

Consider slowing down implementation to allow states to adjust to new

rules

The NPRM includes several sweeping changes that will have a

dramatic impact on how states operate their TANF program.

Further it suggests that the rules could be in effect as soon

as October 2024, if the rules are enacted in the current

fiscal year. This is simply too fast, States are already in

the budgeting process for next year, and to have such

significant changes in what is allowable for TANF and TANF

MOE would be detrimental to states.

States need time to educate legislators on the changes in

what programs can and cannot be funded with TANF; in some

cases, they need to unlearn rules that have been in place

since the inception of TANF. Furthermore, states need time to

adjust contracts and spending plans.

Previous proposed changes to the TANF program that were

introduced in Congress would have included a phased-in

approach to changes. Missouri urges ACF to consider something

similar, with the changes in allowability and third-party MOE

going into effect over the course of three to five years. For

example, ACF could allow states that currently claim third

party MOE to establish a baseline, then allow them to claim

75 percent 50 percent, and 25 percent of that amount over the

next three years. This would allow states to adjust spending

over the course of several years, rather than leaving states

at risk of missing MOE requirements and losing federal TANF

dollars through a penalty process.

The proposed rules would be the most sweeping change to the

TANF program since its inception in 1996. To have these

changes all take place at the same time and with very little

lead time creates an undue burden on the states. Missouri DSS

strongly encourages ACF to reconsider these changes.

Our partners and providers have expressed many of the same

concerns we have noted above. Please see the attached twenty-

two (22) letters from stakeholders across the state who would

be impacted by these changes.

We appreciate your consideration of the submitted comments

and suggestions and look forward to working together to

strengthen TANF and to strengthen and support the families

that we serve.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Knodell,

Director.

Mr. Speaker, at least four other States-- Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania--provide TANF funding to pregnancy resource centers, which meets the TANF purposes of assisting needy families and reducing dependence on government.

As Missouri's comment letter states, it is imperative that we protect this funding and the vital services pregnancy resource centers provide for our families and communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, tens of thousands of pro-life Americans will converge on The National Mall for the March for Life on the anniversary of the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion in all 50 States.

Today's legislation will ensure that expectant mothers will have access to alternatives to abortion and choose the life-affirming services provided at pregnancy resource centers.

I include in the Record letters of support from the National Right to Life Committee and CatholicVote and a statement of support from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.

National Right to Life,

Alexandria, VA, January 17, 2024.

Re Scorecard Advisory, H.R. 69 1 8, the Supporting Pregnant

and Parenting Women and Families Act

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) urges you to

support H.R. 6918, the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting

Women and Families Act. NRLC intends to include the roll call

on H.R. 6918 in its scorecard of key pro-life votes of the

118th Congress.

This legislation would ensure that pregnancy centers are

eligible for state-directed federal funds through the

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

Pregnancy centers serve millions of clients annually and

offer hope and support for women and their unborn children.

In a post-Roe America, it is more important now than ever

that pregnancy centers can effectively support mothers and

their babies.

The Biden Administration is currently proposing a rule to

restrict federal funds from going to pregnancy centers in a

number of states that direct funds to them through the TANF

program. H.R. 6918 would prohibit HHS from finalizing,

implementing, or enforcing this or any similar rulemaking

that would restrict use of TANF for pregnancy centers.

National Right to Life and several affected states

submitted official comments in opposition to the proposed

Biden rule, ``Strengthening Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF) as a Safety Net and Work Program,'' published

on October 2, 2023 (the ``Proposed Rule''). The Proposed

Rule, among other things, targets pregnancy resource centers

by threatening to strip them of millions of dollars of

funding claiming, without evidence, that pregnancy centers do

not meet TANF criteria. This is funding that is currently

being used to compassionately help women and their unborn

babies.

Nearly 3,000 pregnancy centers serve about 2 million

clients annually, saving local communities millions of

dollars by providing services at little to no cost. Many

pregnancy centers provide limited obstetrical ultrasounds

under a local doctor's oversight as well as parenting

classes. In addition, nearly all centers provide material

assistance such as diapers, cribs, and car seats as well as

practical help such as connecting a mother in need to local

resources that can help her with housing or transportation.

For the above reasons, the National Right to Life Committee

urges you to support H.R. 6918. NRLC intends to include the

roll call on H.R. 6918 in its scorecard of key pro-life votes

of the 118th Congress.

Sincerely

Carol Tobias,

President.

Scott Fischbach,

Executive Director.

Jennifer Popik, J.D,

Legislative Director.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we will all celebrate life and support pregnant and parenting women and families.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Pregnancy resource centers are an important option for pregnant women seeking care. They provide critical services to support the health of mothers and their unborn children, including providing needed resources, like diapers, prenatal vitamins, transportation, and parenting classes.

It is unacceptable that the Biden administration proposes to take this option away from mothers and to restrict their access to healthcare.

The administration does not have authority under TANF to restrict funds for pregnancy resource centers. What is worse is that the administration is doing this in order to send more taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood. This Congress must act on behalf of mothers and the right to life.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and resolutions, as follows:

H.R. 16: Ms. Tokuda, Mr. Magaziner, Mr. Casten, Mr. Casar,

Mr. Sherman, Ms. Caraveo, and Mr. Sablan.

H.R. 33: Ms. Ross and Ms. Bonamici.

H.R. 34: Ms. Escobar, Mr. Tonko, and Mr. Nadler.

H.R. 56: Ms. Crockett.

H.R. 231: Mr. Cline.

H.R. 253: Ms. McCollum, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, and Mr.

Cleaver.

H.R. 303: Mr. Kilmer.

H.R. 459: Ms. Castor of Florida.

H.R. 549: Mr. Gallego, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Mrvan, Ms.

Escobar, Ms. Titus, Mr. Evans, Ms. Stansbury, Mr. Espaillat,

Mrs. Lesko, Mr. Joyce of Ohio, Ms. Adams, Ms. Balint, Mr.

Owens, and Mrs. Sykes.

H.R. 620: Mrs. Peltola.

H.R. 666: Mr. Bowman.

H.R. 679: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 681: Ms. Wild, Mr. Swalwell, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, Ms.

Balint, Ms.Crockett, and Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick.

H.R. 700: Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Mr. Latta, Mr. Kelly of

Mississippi, Mr. Kim of New Jersey, Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer, Mr.

Harder of California, and Mrs. Steel.

H.R. 722: Mr. Barr.

H.R. 770: Ms. Kuster.

H.R. 795: Mr. Crow.

H.R. 807: Mr. Miller of Ohio, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Bucshon,

and Mr. Soto.

H.R. 809: Mr. Posey and Mr. Huizenga.

H.R. 866: Mr. Vasquez.

H.R. 873: Mr. Nehls.

H.R. 906: Mr. Steube and Ms. Caraveo.

H.R. 972: Ms. Kelly of Illinois.

H.R. 1073: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 1088: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 1118: Ms. Balint.

H.R. 1138: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 1139: Mr. Newhouse, Mr. DesJarlais, and Ms. Craig.

H.R. 1150: Ms. Jayapal and Mr. Moylan.

H.R. 1191: Mr. Swalwell, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr.

Jackson of Illinois, and Ms. Crockett.

H.R. 1200: Ms. Van Duyne and Mr. McCormick.

H.R. 1235: Mr. Sherman.

H.R. 1250: Mr. Costa.

H.R. 1259: Mr. Lieu.

H.R. 1277: Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Mr. Green of Texas, Ms.

Porter, Ms. Leger Fernandez, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Casten, Mrs.

Cherfilus-McCormick, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. DesJarlais, Ms. Norton,

Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Craig, Mr. Castro of Texas, Mrs. Dingell,

Mr. Morelle, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. Wasserman Schultz,

Mr. Espaillat, Ms. Barragan, and Mr. Huffman.

H.R. 1278: Mr. Moulton.

H.R. 1290: Mr. Feenstra.

H.R. 1295: Mr. Schiff.

H.R. 1318: Ms. Titus and Ms. Craig.

H.R. 1385: Ms. Pingree and Mr. LaHood.

H.R. 1432: Mr. Davis of Illinois.

H.R. 1437: Mr. Sessions.

H.R. 1447: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 1483: Mr. Raskin.

H.R. 1488: Mr. Tonko and Mr. Horsford.

H.R. 1503: Mr. Tonko.

H.R. 1517: Ms. Kuster.

H.R. 1535: Mr. Davis of North Carolina and Mr. Ciscomani.

H.R. 1555: Mr. Cardenas.

H.R. 1572: Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Harder

of California, Mr. Raskin, Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon, Mr. Posey,

and Mr. Owens.

H.R. 1614: Mr. Costa.

H.R. 1623: Mr. Feenstra.

H.R. 1637: Mr. Ciscomani, Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia, and Mr.

Ryan.

H.R. 1638: Mr. Bacon.

H.R. 1643: Mr. Gomez.

H.R. 1679: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 1721: Ms. Crockett and Ms. Kuster.

H.R. 1728: Ms. Mace.

H.R. 1740: Mr. Allred.

H.R. 1758: Mr. Donalds.

H.R. 1763: Mr. Harder of California and Mr. Moskowitz.

H.R. 1770: Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia.

H.R. 1777: Mr. Tony Gonzales of Texas, Mr. Grothman, Mr.

Fleischmann, Mr. Sherman, and Mr. Ciscomani.

H.R. 1788: Mr. Phillips, Ms. Scholten, Ms. Spanberger, Ms.

McCollum, and Mr. Beyer.

H.R. 1831: Mr. Burgess and Mr. Grijalva.

H.R. 1841: Mr. Rouzer.

H.R. 1842: Mr. Gallego.

H.R. 2365: Mr. Levin, Mr. Balderson, Ms. Caraveo, Ms.

Salinas, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Magaziner, Mr. Trone,

Mr. Cleaver, Ms. Brownley, Ms. Leger Fernandez, and Mr.

Veasey.

H.R. 2367: Ms. Lee of Nevada, Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania,

Mr. Guest, Mr. Pappas, and Mrs. Houchin.

H.R. 2370: Ms. Caraveo.

H.R. 2389: Mr. Moulton, Mr. Trone, Ms. Sherrill, Mr.

Horsford, Ms. Ross, Mrs. McBath, Mr. Mrvan, Ms. McCollum, and

Mr. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas.

H.R. 2406: Mr. Barr, Mrs. Harshbarger, and Mrs. Lesko.

H.R. 2407: Mr. Burgess, Ms. Hoyle of Oregon, Mr. Mooney,

Mrs. Fletcher, Mr. Morelle, Mr. Nickel, and Mr. Castro of

Texas.

H.R. 2410: Mr. Nickel.

H.R. 2412: Mr. Harder of California, Mr. Landsman, and Mr.

Cleaver.

H.R. 2431: Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer and Ms. Lee of Nevada.

H.R. 2510: Mr. Harder of California and Ms. Salinas.

H.R. 2550: Ms. Leger Fernandez.

H.R. 2583: Mr. Doggett, Mr. Pocan, Mr. Quigley, Ms. Sewell,

and Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 2630: Ms. Malliotakis, Mr. Steube, Mr. Fitzpatrick,

and Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia.

H.R. 2667: Mrs. Miller of West Virginia and Mr. Aderholt.

H.R. 2697: Mr. Vargas and Ms. Tlaib.

H.R. 2700: Mr. McCormick.

H.R. 2718: Ms. Blunt Rochester.

H.R. 2720: Mr. Carbajal, Ms. Kuster, Mr. Blumenauer, and

Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 2723: Mr. Moulton and Mr. Ryan.

H.R. 2736: Ms. Caraveo.

H.R. 2739: Mrs. Kim of California.

H.R. 2743: Mrs. Miller of West Virginia, Mr. C. Scott

Franklin of Florida, Mr. Simpson, and Mr. Newhouse.

H.R. 2814: Mr. Moore of Utah.

H.R. 2855: Mr. Harder of California.

H.R. 2869: Mr. Mfume.

H.R. 2871: Ms. Jayapal.

H.R. 2891: Mr. Tonko.

H.R. 2929: Mr. Pappas.

H.R. 2955: Mr. Burgess, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Raskin, and Mr.

Goldman of New York.

H.R. 2957: Mr. Morelle and Mr. Allred.

H.R. 2987: Ms. Bush.

H.R. 3007: Mr. McGarvey.

H.R. 3029: Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania and Mrs. Miller of

West Virginia.

H.R. 3074: Mr. Carter of Louisiana and Ms. Scanlon.

H.R. 3108: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 3137: Mr. Newhouse.

H.R. 3139: Mr. Ryan and Ms. Foxx.

H.R. 3145: Ms. Omar.

H.R. 3152: Mr. Simpson, Mr. Tony Gonzales of Texas, Mr. C.

Scott Franklin of Florida, Mr. Cline, Mr. Santos, Mr. Golden

of Maine, Mrs. Foushee, and Mr. Rouzer.

H.R. 3170: Mr. Pallone and Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania.

H.R. 3184: Mr. Norcross.

H.R. 3192: Ms. Slotkin.

H.R. 3206: Mr. Gooden of Texas.

H.R. 3235: Mr. Huffman.

H.R. 3251: Mr. McGovern.

H.R. 3272: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 3378: Mr. Bacon.

H.R. 3380: Ms. Kuster and Mr. Landsman.

H.R. 3381: Mr. Gottheimer, Mr. Norman, Mr. Babin, Ms.

Malliotakis, Mr. Soto, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Trone, Ms.

Manning, Mr. Ciscomani, Ms. Caraveo, Mr. Carey, and Ms.

Salazar.

H.R. 3394: Mr. Pallone, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Scanlon, Ms.

Brownley, Ms. Ross, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Deluzio, Ms. Tlaib, and

Mr. Trone.

H.R. 3410: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 3413: Ms. Chu, Ms. Greene of Georgia, and Ms. Ross.

H.R. 3424: Mr. Tonko and Mr. Harder of California.

H.R. 3425: Mr. Tiffany and Ms. Manning.

H.R. 3448: Ms. Spanberger.

H.R. 3464: Mrs. Houchin.

H.R. 3468: Mr. Schiff, Mr. Vargas, Ms. Salinas, and Mr.

Goldman of New York.

H.R. 3473: Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.

H.R. 3488: Mr. Grijalva and Ms. Velazquez.

H.R. 3492: Mr. C. Scott Franklin of Florida.

H.R. 3503: Mr. Lieu and Mr. Pocan.

H.R. 3518: Ms. Norton.

H.R. 3519: Mr. Gomez.

H.R. 3530: Mr. Krishnamoorthi, Ms. DelBene, Mr. Swalwell,

Mr. Lieu, Ms. Ross, Mr. Neguse, and Mr. Schneider.

H.R. 3539: Mr. Crow and Mr. Molinaro.

H.R. 3549: Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

H.R. 3576: Mr. Smith of Washington and Mr. Vargas.

H.R. 3585: Ms. Mace.

H.R. 3589: Ms. Tokuda.

H.R. 3600: Mr. Larsen of Washington and Mr. Harder of

California.

H.R. 3601: Mr. Vargas, Mr. Moulton, and Ms. Sherrill.

H.R. 3608: Mr. Ruiz.

H.R. 3618: Mr. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Wilson of Florida.

H.R. 3662: Ms. Pingree.

H.R. 3679: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 3681: Mr. Levin.

H.R. 3730: Mr. Ciscomani.

H.R. 3755: Mr. Smucker.

H.R. 3774: Mr. Fleischmann, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Soto, Mr.

Sherman, Ms.

Craig, and Mr. Bilirakis.

H.R. 3782: Mr. Fry and Mr. Phillips.

H.R. 3792: Mr. Lieu, Ms. Castor of Florida, Mr. Tony

Gonzales of Texas, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Sherman, and

Mr. Robert Garcia of California.

H.R. 3838: Mr. Cohen.

H.R. 3843: Mr. Pocan and Ms. Tlaib.

H.R. 3851: Ms. Van Duyne and Ms. Sherrill.

H.R. 3859: Ms. Lofgren, Ms. McCollum, and Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 3867: Mr. LaLota.

H.R. 3875: Mr. Quigley and Mr. Mullin.

H.R. 3876: Mr. Crow.

H.R. 3879: Ms. Craig.

H.R. 3882: Mr. Deluzio and Mr. Joyce of Ohio.

H.R. 3916: Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, Mrs. Bice, Ms.

McClellan, Mrs. Miller-Meeks, and Ms. Sherrill.

H.R. 3923: Mr. McGarvey.

H.R. 3949: Mr. Fry and Mr. Latta.

H.R. 3965: Mr. Robert Garcia of California.

H.R. 3988: Mr. Good of Virginia.

H.R. 3990: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 4007: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 4024: Ms. Matsui.

H.R. 4034: Ms. DelBene.

H.R. 4035: Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

H.R. 4040: Ms. DeGette.

H.R. 4059: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 4061: Mr. Kildee.

H.R. 4076: Mr. Peters.

H.R. 4118: Ms. Crockett, Ms. Norton, Mr. Carson, and Ms.

Jackson Lee.

H.R. 4144: Mr. Yakym.

H.R. 4149: Mr. Carson.

H.R. 4157: Mr. Moskowitz, Mr. Gottheimer, Mr. Flood, and

Ms. Wild.

H.R. 4170: Ms. Ross and Ms. Balint.

H.R. 4174: Ms. Budzinski.

H.R. 4175: Mr. Hill.

H.R. 4183: Ms. Castor of Florida.

H.R. 4198: Mr. Hill.

H.R. 4202: Mr. Gottheimer, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Ms.

Spanberger, Ms. Scanlon, Ms. Crockett, Mr. Torres of New

York, Mr. Swalwell, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Trone, Mr.

Garcia of Illinois, and Mr. Lynch.

H.R. 4238: Mr. Timmons.

H.R. 4241: Ms. Davids of Kansas.

H.R. 4249: Ms. Craig.

H.R. 4259: Mrs. Houchin.

H.R. 4262: Ms. Mace.

H.R. 4273: Mr. Phillips.

H.R. 4274: Mr. McGovern.

H.R. 4295: Mr. Carter of Louisiana and Mr. Mullin.

H.R. 4314: Ms. DeGette.

H.R. 4328: Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia.

H.R. 4334: Mr. Bacon and Mr. Bergman.

H.R. 4384: Ms. Manning.

H.R. 4395: Mr. Baird.

H.R. 4432: Ms. Davids of Kansas.

H.R. 4438: Mr. Owens.

H.R. 4466: Mr. McGarvey and Ms. Wilson of Florida.

H.R. 4475: Mrs. Watson Coleman.

H.R. 4478: Mr. Mills.

H.R. 4514: Ms. Greene of Georgia.

H.R. 4534: Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, Mr. Connolly, Ms.

Clarke of New York, and Ms. Wild.

H.R. 4561: Mr. McGovern and Ms. DeGette.

H.R. 4562: Mr. Moulton and Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 4563: Mr. McCormick.

H.R. 4566: Ms. Lofgren.

H.R. 4577: Ms. Sherrill and Mr. Guest.

H.R. 4581: Mr. Feenstra.

H.R. 4587: Ms. Salazar and Ms. Lee of Florida.

H.R. 4598: Mr. Lieu.

H.R. 4602: Ms. Kuster.

H.R. 4612: Mr. Duarte and Ms. Caraveo.

H.R. 4624: Mr. Carson, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Grijalva, and Ms.

Jackson Lee.

H.R. 4663: Mrs. Lesko.

H.R. 4702: Mr. Lieu.

H.R. 4728: Ms. Schakowsky.

H.R. 4729: Ms. De La Cruz and Mr. Fry.

H.R. 4733: Mr. Neguse.

H.R. 4745: Mrs. Kim of California.

H.R. 4750: Ms. Jayapal.

H.R. 4758: Ms. Wexton, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Smucker, and Ms.

Barragan.

H.R. 4769: Ms. Scholten, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Garbarino, Mr.

Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Lawler, Mr. Goldman of New York, Mr.

LaLota, and Mr. Carter of Louisiana.

H.R. 4779: Mr. Doggett, Mr. Payne, and Mr. McGovern.

H.R. 4782: Mr. Blumenauer.

H.R. 4817: Mr. Robert Garcia of California.

H.R. 4844: Mr. Harder of California.

H.R. 4886: Mr. Kildee.

H.R. 4895: Mr. Connolly, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Escobar, Mr.

Larsen of Washington, and Ms. Porter.

H.R. 4904: Mrs. Miller-Meeks.

H.R. 4914: Ms. Barragan.

H.R. 4919: Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania, and

Mr. Frost.

H.R. 4921: Mrs. Miller of Illinois.

H.R. 4965: Ms. Garcia of Texas, Mr. Norcross, Ms. Ocasio-

Cortez, and Ms. Lofgren.

H.R. 4970: Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer.

H.R. 5006: Ms. Stefanik.

H.R. 5008: Ms. Kamlager-Dove and Ms. Balint.

H.R. 5012: Ms. Clarke of New York, Ms. Williams of Georgia,

and Ms. Craig.

H.R. 5013: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 5041: Mr. Ruiz.

H.R. 5094: Mr. Langworthy.

H.R. 5106: Mr. Womack.

H.R. 5107: Mr. Grothman.

H.R. 5110: Mrs. McClain, Ms. Foxx, Ms. Perez, Mr. Walberg,

Mrs. Houchin, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. Bost, Mr. Williams of New

York, Mr. DesJarlais, and Mr. LaHood.

H.R. 5113: Mr. Vasquez.

H.R. 5130: Mr. Graves of Missouri.

H.R. 5136: Ms. Caraveo.

H.R. 5145: Mr. Bowman.

H.R. 5159: Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. LaHood, Mr.

Fitzpatrick, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Larson of

Connecticut, Mr. Comer, Mr. Graves of Louisiana, Mr. Boyle of

Pennsylvania, Mr. Gottheimer, and Mr. Phillips.

H.R. 5169: Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Bergman, Mr. Thompson of

California, and Mr. Ciscomani.

H.R. 5171: Mr. Swalwell.

H.R. 5175: Ms. Norton, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Bilirakis, and Mr.

Moskowitz.

H.R. 5182: Mr. Fry and Mr. Owens.

H.R. 5184: Mr. Fallon, Mr. Crenshaw, and Mr. Meuser.

H.R. 5203: Mr. Mooney.

H.R. 5221: Ms. Eshoo.

H.R. 5233: Ms. Davids of Kansas.

H.R. 5239: Ms. Lee of Florida.

H.R. 5242: Ms. Bonamici and Mr. Fitzpatrick.

H.R. 5245: Mr. Issa and Ms. Stefanik.

H.R. 5247: Mr. Sablan.

H.R. 5249: Mr. Moulton, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Carson, Ms.

Tokuda, Mr. Davis of North Carolina, and Mr. Case.

H.R. 5250: Mr. Lawler.

H.R. 5252: Ms. Sherrill, Mr. Payne, and Mr. Blumenauer.

H.R. 5265: Mr. Stauber.

H.R. 5283: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.

H.R. 5290: Mr. Tonko and Ms. Bush.

H.R. 5291: Ms. Bush.

H.R. 5292: Mr. Tonko, Ms. Bush, Ms. Chu, and Ms. Jayapal.

H.R. 5293: Ms. Bush.

H.R. 5294: Ms. Bush and Ms. Jayapal.

H.R. 5295: Mr. Tonko and Ms. Bush.

H.R. 5302: Mr. Waltz.

H.R. 5308: Mr. Costa and Mr. Ryan.

H.R. 5318: Mr. Davis of North Carolina.

H.R. 5323: Mr. Sessions.

H.R. 5329: Mr. Takano.

H.R. 5342: Mr. Williams of Texas, Mr. Gooden of Texas, and

Ms. De La Cruz.

H.R. 5349: Mr. Owens.

H.R. 5351: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Veasey.

H.R. 5361: Mrs. Foushee.

H.R. 5368: Mr. Fry, Mrs. Harshbarger, Mr. Van Drew, Mr.

Johnson of Louisiana, Mr. Bost, and Mr. Mills.

H.R. 5369: Ms. Barragan.

H.R. 5377: Mr. Davis of North Carolina.

H.R. 5379: Mr. Norman.

H.J. Res. 88: Mr. Babin, Mr. Good of Virginia, Mrs. Miller-

Meeks, Mrs. Houchin, Mr. Yakym, and Ms. Hageman.

H. Con. Res. 31: Mr. Huffman.

H. Con. Res. 44: Mr. Casar.

H. Con. Res. 59: Ms. Sanchez.

H. Con. Res. 61: Ms. Waters, Mr. Moulton, Ms. DeGette, Mr.

Casten, Mr. Levin, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Ms. Clarke of New

York, Ms. McClellan, Mr. DeSaulnier, Mr. Casar, Ms. Balint,

Ms. Salinas, and Mr. Pocan.

H. Res. 50: Mr. Mooney, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Cloud, and Ms.

Van Duyne.

H. Res. 77: Mr. Lynch.

H. Res. 100: Mr. Walberg.

H. Res. 108: Mr. Mike Garcia of California.

H. Res. 154: Mr. Khanna.

H. Res. 198: Mrs. Fletcher.

H. Res. 339: Mr. Donalds.

H. Res. 345: Mr. Nadler.

H. Res. 374: Mr. Frost.

H. Res. 451: Mr. Kelly of Mississippi, Mrs. Miller of

Illinois, Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer, Ms. Budzinski, Mr. Davis of

North Carolina, Mr. Bost, and Mr. Sorensen.

H. Res. 492: Mr. Van Drew, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Vasquez, Ms.

Stevens, Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon, Mr. Vicente Gonzalez of Texas,

Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mr. Allred.

H. Res. 509: Mr. Goldman of New York.

H. Res. 585: Mrs. Torres of California, Ms. Lee of

California, and Ms. Dean of Pennsylvania.

H. Res. 615: Mr. Carter of Louisiana.

H. Res. 616: Mr. Peters, Mr. Keating, and Ms. Ross.

H. Res. 623: Mr. Moskowitz and Mr. Trone.

H. Res. 625: Mrs. Trahan, Mr. Costa, and Mr. Torres of New

York.

H. Res. 627: Mr. Ruppersberger, Mrs. Miller of Illinois,

Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Schiff, and Ms. Craig.

H. Res. 634: Ms. Schakowsky.

H. Res. 651: Mr. DesJarlais.

H. Res. 674: Mr. Moylan, Ms. Crockett, Ms. Norton, Mr.

Posey, Mrs. Peltola, Mr. Nunn of Iowa, Mr. Van Drew, Mr.

Donalds, Mr. Westerman, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, and Mr.

Crenshaw.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, the majority is pushing yet another extreme anti- choice bill just in time for the big antiwoman rally in Washington this weekend.

Rather than helping hardworking American families, Republicans are working to divert Federal funds from needy children in order to serve their own extremist agenda that is out of step with the majority of Americans.

Republicans are attempting to funnel more Federal funds into dangerous anti-abortion facilities, the so-called pregnancy centers. The other side doesn't even dispute that these centers have a specific agenda: to do everything they can within their power to coerce women into doing what the center thinks is best for the women, not what is in the best interest of the mother.

These so-called crisis pregnancy centers provide deceptive and inaccurate information to pregnant women.

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program is intended to help low-income women and families, not to reduce abortions. This funding was not intended to bankroll deceptive anti-abortion centers that misrepresent themselves as healthcare facilities. These facilities often delay access to care, and they use emotional manipulation to divert access to care from licensed medical professionals.

The American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and even the National Institutes of Health have all issued reports citing numerous ethical and medical concerns with these so-called centers.

These facilities are unregulated. They have no legal obligation to provide pregnant people with accurate information. They are not subject to HIPAA protections, nor are they required by law to maintain client confidentiality. In many cases, they don't even have licensed medical professionals on staff.

One woman who sought out care at a Florida women's health center in Jacksonville was told that having an abortion would cause breast cancer. This is patently false. Another was advised to relax at the beach after being incorrectly informed she was carrying an ectopic pregnancy.

These facilities are unsafe. Multiple physician organizations have stated that they are unethical. The bottom line is that anti-abortion clinics should not receive Federal dollars to continue spreading false information to low-income, often minority, women seeking comprehensive, nonjudgmental fact- and science-based reproductive healthcare.

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

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

I will point out that one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle mentioned some violence, and I will talk about the violence that happens at abortion provider clinics.

They have been compiling statistics on instances of violence and disruption against abortion providers for more than 40 years, and there is definite uptick in the amount of clinic invasions, obstructions, blockades, targeted mail, and harassing phone calls.

In recent years, we have seen incidents of violence with devastating impacts. For example, in November 2015, three people were murdered and nine injured when Robert Dear brought an assault-style rifle to a Planned Parenthood healthcare center in Colorado Springs and opened fire.

A gunman also attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Knoxville, Tennessee, in the early hours of January 22, 2021. In December 2021, the same clinic was burned to the ground by arsonists.

If you want to talk about incidents of violence, let's talk about the onslaught of violent attacks that abortion providers have had to deal with for over the past 40 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee and a champion for women's rights.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that unlike these so-called pregnancy centers, Planned Parenthood actually gives women factually and scientifically accurate information and the full range of choices, while the pregnancy centers have a clear agenda and only one point of view.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms.

Moore), a champion for women everywhere.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), my colleague on the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan), my esteemed colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are insulted by the issues that we are raising because I have a brief here in front of me from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists which talks about the fact that these pregnancy crisis centers use digital marketing tactics to target people seeking information about abortion care. According to their studies, 71 percent of these centers use deceptive means, such as spreading thoroughly debunked misinformation, and 38 percent of them do not clearly state on their home page that they don't provide abortion care.

If you are mad at us for raising these points, talk to the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, because they have done an in-depth, comprehensive study to talk about the repeated misinformation that these centers give out to women who are in crisis. The deceptive information that they give to them puts these women's lives at risk. If you are so pro-life, why do you not care about the life of the mother?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

Mr. Speaker, I would just love to point out to anybody who cares for real facts a 2006 congressional report and investigation that found false and misleading health information provided by federally funded pregnancy resource centers. That will give you an accurate picture of just what goes on behind those doors.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Davids).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

We keep hearing about how these centers provide infant formula, and we have a program that helps mothers afford infant formula. It is called WIC.

I remind my colleagues that House Republicans' fiscal year 2024 Agriculture appropriations bill would have made benefit cuts and eligibility losses for millions of mothers who rely on WIC. It would have shortchanged WIC by $800 million.

So, I find the argument that the centers are so necessary to be specious because that could have been provided under the Agriculture appropriations bill, which my Republican colleagues wanted to cut so dramatically. If they really cared about working families, they wouldn't be asking for those deep and unconscionable cuts to a program that provides infant formula to mothers.

As we have seen over the past hour, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are choosing to double down on their war on women. These centers have coerced, deceived, and put women's lives in danger with inaccurate, biased information, but don't just take my word for it. A congressional investigation found that the majority of these clinics surveyed provided false information about abortion. The American Medical Association has called these centers unethical because of the gross disinformation that they push on vulnerable women.

These centers are not regulated by State's consumer protection statutes which govern the practice of medicine. Republicans have proven they have no interest in amending this bill to actually protect pregnant women seeking care from these facilities.

My Ways and Means Republican colleagues voted against ensuring these facilities provide medically accurate information.

Why are they so afraid to provide women with medically accurate information?

My Republican colleagues voted against prohibiting these facilities from providing biased reproductive health information or counseling.

Let me be very clear. Democrats have fought, and we continue to fight, for comprehensive equitable access to reproductive healthcare for women.

We passed the Women's Health Protection Act twice.

We passed the right to contraception.

The American people have been very clear about supporting access to reproductive healthcare. Democrats have proven that we stand with them, and this bill that the Republicans have put on the floor today once again shows that my Republican colleagues are willing to discard pregnant women to appease their extremist anti-choice rightwing base.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6918, the so called Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act.

This bill would achieve the exact opposite of its purported goal of supporting parenting women and families--instead, it would divers funding away from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or TANF. TANF provides cash assistance directly to struggling families with children to pay for essential needs. Hypocritically, this extreme GOP bill would siphon off funding intended for our neediest families to prop up a network of unlicensed, unregulated Crisis Pregnancy Centers run by anti-choice activists.

If the GOP was truly the ``pro-life'' party, they would know that TANF is the only federal assistance program that struggling families can use to buy diapers for their babies. Families who receive direct cash assistance

through TANF can purchase diapers for their children at their nearest store. Some of my Republican colleagues have argued that many Crisis Pregnancy Centers provide diapers for families. However, if parents had to instead rely on Crisis Pregnancy Centers for essential childcare needs, they could be forced to travel long distances to centers that might not be accessible through public transportation. Additionally, an investigation by this very body found that 87% of anti-abortion counseling centers provide false or misleading information about reproductive care.

If the GOP was in touch with the needs of their constituents, they would know that diaper need is a crisis in America that can overwhelm families who are already financially struggling. An average monthly supply of diapers for a single child costs $80 to $100. As of 2023, half of U.S. families report not being able to afford enough diapers to keep their child clean, dry, and healthy, and 3 in 5 parents report missing work or school because they can't afford the diapers required to leave their baby in childcare. Tell me, how is taking away the only federal funding for diapers pro-life?

I strongly oppose this farce of a bill that would only harm struggling families.

Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak in strong opposition to the proposed legislation, H.R. 6918--Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act.

This legislation, in my view, represents a concerning step in the wrong direction.

It has been characterized by critics as part of a broader effort by conservative Republicans to limit women's reproductive freedom.

With nearly 18 months having passed since the pivotal Roe v. Wade decision was overturned, the introduction of this bill signals a continued push towards what some view as a national ban on abortion.

I believe that reproductive rights are a fundamental aspect of individual autonomy, and any legislative measures that may restrict or impede these rights warrant scrutiny.

Furthermore, the potential allocation of federal funds to support such measures raises serious concerns about the appropriate use of taxpayer dollars and the role of government in personal healthcare decisions.

I am committed to advocating for policies that uphold and protect the reproductive rights of individuals, recognizing the importance of a balanced and inclusive approach that respects diverse perspectives.

This legislation seeks to undermine a woman's right to access abortion services by employing tactics that involve misleading information, deceptive practices, and attempts at shaming individuals seeking reproductive care.

We as Democrats, in response, remain steadfast in our commitment to enshrine reproductive freedom as a legal right through the Women's Health Protection Act (H.R. 12).

This comprehensive legislation aims to safeguard individuals' access to essential reproductive healthcare services and protect them from deceptive practices that may obstruct their right to make informed choices about their reproductive health.

We must advocate for a legislative approach that prioritizes the autonomy and well-being of individuals seeking reproductive care while countering efforts to curtail their rights through disinformation and coercion.

In addition, H.R. 6918 raises significant concerns as it proposes funding for what are commonly referred to as ``crisis pregnancy centers'' or anti-abortion centers (AACs).

These entities have been criticized for engaging in deceptive practices that aim to manipulate women during their pregnancies, potentially hindering their ability to access comprehensive reproductive care.

In light of these considerations, I firmly oppose H.R. 6918 and will work to ensure that the legislative process reflects a careful examination of its potential impact on the rights and choices of individuals.

In my home state of Texas where abortion have been completely banned, our state has continued to struggle with maternal mortality and morbidity, and the rates are only expected to increase as the years go by.

In 2013, when Texas first started tracking deaths and severe illness or injury from pregnancy and childbirth, Black women were twice as likely as white women and four times as likely as Hispanic women to die from pregnancy-related causes.

This number has only increased as more women are being denied lifesaving abortion measures and face inadequate care after birth.

Another undermining aspect of this bill is in its use of TANF, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

TANF plays a crucial role as it is a vital resource for families across the country.

This bill, however, introduces a concerning element by potentially creating a loophole that could divert essential funding away from its intended purpose, channeling it toward anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers.

These centers have faced scrutiny for their practices, with critics arguing that they may engage in deceptive tactics, potentially impacting the comprehensive support available to families.

By allowing TANF funding to be redirected to such centers, there is a risk that the intended assistance for struggling families may be compromised.

TANF's importance cannot be underestimated as it provides financial support, job preparation, and other essential services to low-income families.

The proposed diversion of funds to anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers raises questions about the broader impact on the social safety net and the potential limitations it might place on the availability of diverse and comprehensive resources for those in need.

As discussions on this bill unfold, it is crucial to assess how any changes may affect the original objectives of TANF and the families it is designed to support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6918, the deceptively named Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act.

This bill has a simple but negative purpose: It would divert Temporary Assistance for Needy Families dollars that successfully keep needy children and families from poverty to anti-abortion centers.

These so-called crisis pregnancy centers masquerade as healthcare facilities, even going so far as to have staff dress in scrubs and white coats to mimic medical professionals.

Let's be clear: They are organizations attempting to strong-arm, manipulate, and coerce pregnant people seeking abortion care into carrying pregnancies to full term, and this is to the great disadvantage of women in need.

These anti-abortion centers are not actual medical facilities, so they are not covered by the privacy and security rules of HIPAA. With little or no consequence, staff at these facilities can lie to patients and share their personal information with anti-abortion extremists in order to survey, harass, pressure, or prosecute those seeking abortion care.

The lies these centers tell can have profound impacts on a patient's health. In Iowa, an OB/GYN has seen patients who were told at these centers that using contraceptives was the same as having an abortion.

In Massachusetts, an unqualified staff member at an anti-abortion center failed to diagnose a woman's ectopic pregnancy. That woman later required emergency surgery. Worst of all, there are no consequences to these centers for this.

A recent study of 607 anti-abortion centers across nine States found that they ``promoted patently false and/or biased medical claims about pregnancy, abortion, contraception, and reproductive healthcare providers.'' Fewer than half of these centers reported having a licensed medical professional on staff.

Unfortunately for the American people, spreading misinformation about abortion and ultimately implementing a national ban on abortion seems to be unifying objectives for Republicans here in Congress.

During our markup last week, Democrats offered a series of amendments to allow funding to these centers if they could prove that they provide medically accurate information, not harm women's health, and did not mislead or coerce women into visiting their centers.

Committee Republicans rejected all of those amendments, making it clear that their purpose is coercive propaganda, not support for pregnant women.

If Republicans want to support expecting new parents, House Democrats would welcome their backing of a fully expanded child tax credit, universal paid family and medical leave, and affordable childcare.

However, instead of considering these measures or even doing the basic business of keeping the government open, we are debating a bill going nowhere in the Senate and intended, instead, to score political points with anti-abortion groups gathering in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 6918.