H.Res. 969

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for yielding the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, here we are, a little more than 48 hours from a devastating government shutdown. The deadline to pass a Federal budget is already 3 months overdue, and the clock keeps ticking.

Unable to get control of their majority and act responsibly, Republicans keep kicking the can down the road. They have struggled to pass any legislation because they choose again and again to appease an extremist minority rather than to advance policies supported by the majority of Americans and their Representatives here in the House.

Moreover, now, as we face pressing challenges at home and around the world, they have brought us to the brink of disaster once more, all because they chose to renege on a bipartisan deal to fund the government.

So, with these serious problems we are facing, what are House Republicans' priorities for today? They are to attack the President and pass more anti-abortion bills. It is a new year, but for House Republicans, it is the same old story.

Distracted by their own chaos and infighting, they have repeatedly failed to deliver for the American people. They have wasted time and tax dollars on baseless investigations and divisive culture wars, dragging the American people with them down rabbit holes of conspiracies and untruths.

They throw tantrums when they can't get their way, ousting their last Speaker and, just last week, bringing all work in the House to a halt because their new Speaker had dared to try to

strike a deal to keep the government open.

They put on dramatic acts of political theater, hoping to hide the fact that they are unable to complete the most basic tasks of governing. In 2023, they led the least productive session of Congress since the Great Depression.

We think the American people deserve better.

With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, let's look at the three bills that the House leadership has chosen to spend Congress' time on this week, and it is more of the same.

The first bill in this rule is the grotesquely misleading H. Res. 957, a resolution that repeats lies and distortions about the migration challenges at our southern border, starting with the title of the resolution and its false claim that this administration is promoting an open border. This is MAGA fiction, and it is an effort to keep campaigning on the fear of immigrants rather than any serious attempt to address the complex issues created by global migration forces and decades of congressional inaction.

It has become obvious that our Republican colleagues don't really want to fix our broken immigration system. They just want to campaign on it.

They have rejected--before even reading--the bipartisan solutions proposed by Senate Republicans, Democrats, and the administration.

They have refused to consider supplemental border funding requests from the President because the truth is they don't want solutions. They want political stunts. They want to rant, complain, blame, and campaign.

Immigration and border issues are complex. That is why they have remained on the table for so many years. They require comprehensive and nuanced policies, not acts of cruelty and dehumanization marked by barbed wire, family separation, or needless tragedies.

As we have seen over and over again, our Republican colleagues would rather use this issue to sow anger, division, and fear. They will use meaningless resolutions that do nothing to change the status quo, like this one, to distract from their failed Congress and their do-nothing agenda.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to see just how House Republicans view immigration and the border as a purely political issue, look no further than House leadership. After saying for months that border security is a crisis and just last month taking a field trip with over 60 House Republicans to the border, this week House leadership refused to even consider a bipartisan deal negotiated by the Senate before they have read it.

Mr. Speaker, you can't say that the border is in a state of emergency yet reject a bipartisan deal to address the crisis.

We can and must do better than this. Moreover, we owe it to our constituents and our country to work toward real, thoughtful solutions rather than partisan talking points like H. Res. 957.

Now, let's turn to H.R. 6914 and H.R. 6918. Supporting the health and well-being of mothers and babies should be something we can all agree upon, and we would welcome some real collaboration in that area.

Nonetheless, that is not what the majority has brought to the floor today. The fact is that both of these bills are designed to advance an extremist agenda to limit Americans' fundamental freedoms, particularly with respect to reproductive healthcare.

It is nothing but a political exercise that our Republican colleagues undertake every year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. It is designed to cater to the most extreme supporters as they descend on Washington, D.C., for an anti-abortion rally.

The fact is that the MAGA majority's anti-abortion agenda is wildly unpopular in this country. The vast majority of Americans do not support it, and they have proven that at the polls repeatedly in the last couple of years.

Americans do not want politicians and rightwing extremists undermining their freedom to make their own medical and reproductive healthcare choices based on their own individual circumstances.

In the face of the overwhelming and repeated rejection of these extremist attempts to interfere in private medical decisions, Republicans are now cloaking their efforts in family-friendly rhetoric and misleading talking points. So, it is important to dig a little deeper and see what these bills are and are not.

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really wanted to support pregnant women, children, and families, then they would work with us to address the shameful fact that maternal mortality in our country far exceeds that of our peers. Childbirth is dangerous here in the United States, particularly for Black women and their babies, not because we don't know how to support healthy outcomes but because of a lack of will or interest from Congress.

It is a full-blown crisis, but it doesn't have to be. When it comes to giving our kids brighter futures, we should be talking about powerful tools like the expanded child tax credit, which lifted millions of children out of poverty. We should be strengthening WIC and SNAP, nutrition programs that serve as lifelines for pregnant women, mothers, infants, and families. Instead, this MAGA majority has proposed deep cuts to these nutrition programs.

We should pass policies to improve access to high-quality childcare and early education services, nutritious food, comprehensive maternal and infant healthcare, stable housing, and family-sustaining jobs because those are the things that would really help our kids and families.

The policies that our Republican colleagues have brought before us today in these two bills do none of that.

In fact, they would actually divert money away from vulnerable families and ultimately endanger women's lives.

H.R. 6914 purports to be concerned with providing information to pregnant college students.

Of course, there are obvious and unique challenges to balancing school and parenting, although students and their families can thrive with the right support. Unfortunately, this bill doesn't actually provide such support.

Instead, it requires that colleges inform students only about the rights and resources for carrying a pregnancy to term--resources, I will add, for which this House majority has sought to dramatically slash funding.

The bill purposely leaves out any requirement for schools to distribute medically accurate information regarding all of the healthcare options available to pregnant women. If this bill were truly about ensuring that pregnant college students have the necessary information to make informed decisions to meet their unique reproductive healthcare needs, it would include information about contraception, abortion, miscarriages, and the services that might be available to them during their pregnancy and after.

If the underlying intent of this bill were not clear enough in its one-sided substance, we need only look to the alleged funding section of the bill, which would write into law completely unproven and even false anti-abortion talking points.

These are findings that the bill's author could provide no evidence to support when it was marked up in committee. However, don't take my word for it. Advocates dedicated to advancing civil rights and resources for pregnant and parenting students have expressed deep concerns about this bill, including groups that are experts on this issue like The Coalition For Pregnant and Parenting Students Advocacy.

It is obvious that this MAGA majority doesn't really care about educating and supporting pregnant and parenting students. Instead, they would rather leave them in the dark and attempt to deny women the freedom to make informed decisions about their own bodies and futures.

Lastly, I will talk about H.R. 6918, which is another example of House Republicans doubling down on an extreme and unpopular agenda to try to ban abortion care nationwide. This bill is cloaked in a title that most Americans would agree with, the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act.

In fact, Congress has passed bipartisan legislation to do just that, including through TANF funding, the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.

However, in recent years, there has been growing evidence and a raft of studies showing that critical TANF aid for families is being diverted to purposes not authorized by Congress.

One of the greatest causes of concern is the siphoning of Federal TANF taxpayer dollars to support so-called crisis pregnancy centers, most of which are part of a well-funded arm of the global anti-abortion movement.

There is a growing body of evidence that these crisis pregnancy centers use deceptive and coercive tactics to target vulnerable people facing unplanned pregnancies, and they often prevent them from accessing a full range of appropriate reproductive healthcare, including safe abortion care and contraceptives.

Just as this bill is cloaked in benign pro-family rhetoric, these pregnancy centers distribute diapers and formula in order to disguise their underlying anti-abortion mission.

One of the great dangers of these crisis pregnancy centers is that they present themselves as legitimate healthcare facilities, but the reality is that most are unlicensed, understaffed by medical professionals, and unbound by the privacy laws that govern medical providers.

This has led to women being misled and given inaccurate or even dangerous information about their pregnancies and the options for care that are available to them, including women who have suffered life- threatening undiagnosed complications in their pregnancies, women who have been denied the information and opportunity to access appropriate reproductive healthcare for them, and women who have been encouraged to undertake dangerous and medically contraindicated procedures.

There is strong evidence that many pregnancy centers are using the public money that States allocate to them through TANF for purposes that are not authorized by Congress. That is why last year, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a proposed regulation to better guide the States in what services were eligible for TANF funding, and that is why this bill, H.R. 6918, is so dangerous and dishonest.

When we have a growing mountain of evidence of misuse and even fraudulent use of TANF dollars by crisis pregnancy centers, this bill by its term would prevent the Department of Health and Human Services from any regulation of pregnancy crisis centers.

House Republicans would green light the unregulated use of public money to fund these anti-abortion facilities, many of which have been proven to promote false medical claims and misinformation; misrepresent their services as providing a full range of reproductive healthcare, despite having only anti-abortion services and usually lacking any medical personnel. Horrifyingly, they are unbound by HIPAA privacy restrictions, and some of these centers collect and distribute women's sensitive personal information to organizations within the larger anti- abortion movement.

This is what Republicans are trying to push upon American women with these bills, and I wholeheartedly disagree.

Thus, here we are. It is another week, and the House GOP still can't get their act together. Their majority is on track to become one of the most ineffective in modern history.

Again, we are just hours from a government shutdown, but instead of dealing with that or any of the real problems Americans are facing today, this House majority is desperately trying to mask its own failure with misleading rhetoric and bills that will never become law. It would be a joke if it weren't so serious.

Led by their most extreme Members, it is clear our Republican colleagues don't want to make Congress work better for the American people. They want to break it, and they want to campaign on it. They want to bring chaos to this Chamber and pass legislation that feeds the flames of their desperate culture wars.

It is irresponsible, it is reckless, and it is not what the American people want.

Mr. Speaker, I deeply oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

We have heard from our colleagues over the course of debate on this bill that they think that they need more discretion to spend TANF dollars, but if this bill were to pass, a pregnancy center would be unregulated. That is what the bill literally says, We cannot regulate pregnancy crisis centers. So if they wanted to use TANF dollars to stage a Taylor Swift concert, they could because there is to be no regulation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the executive summary of a report titled, ``Designed to Deceive: A Study of the Crisis Pregnancy Center Industry in Nine States,'' written by the Alliance: State Advocates for Women's Rights and Gender Equity.

Mr. Speaker, this report studies crisis pregnancy centers in Alaska, California, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota. Overall, its findings show that crisis pregnancy centers provided virtually no medical care, promoted false medical claims, and used deceptive practices; State-funded crisis pregnancy centers are more harmful than privately-funded centers; and crisis pregnancy centers appear to be local, but are actually part of a global anti-abortion network.

It is clear that these sorts of manipulative and unregulated centers are not what is best for women and children's health, and actually have been proven to misuse Federal taxpayer dollars. We absolutely shouldn't be allowing Federal dollars to flow to them without any scrutiny.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter from the Coalition for Pregnant and Parenting Students Advocacy and other organizations dedicated to advancing civil rights protections and resources for pregnant and parenting students in opposition to H.R. 6914.

Mr. Speaker, this letter expresses concern that this bill is

based upon unproven anti-abortion rhetoric and seeks to limit students' ability to make reproductive healthcare decisions with a full range of information.

It goes on to say that the bill does not contain any meaningful support to help pregnant and parenting students meet their educational goals, and it notes how the bill leaves out policies we know would actually make a difference, like strengthen Title IX protections, accessible childcare and early education, basic needs security, and accountability measures for institutions that fail to protect pregnant and parenting students.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, could you please advise how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would ensure every American has full access to essential reproductive healthcare services, including abortion care.

Since the Dobbs decision, every State in the Union has taken action on abortion in some way. Many States have used it as an opportunity to enact laws that ban specific instances of abortion or abortion care entirely. Republicans have reiterated time and again that that is their goal, to ban abortion nationwide.

The abortion access landscape is deeply fractured, and Americans continue to face the devastating consequences of abortion bans and restrictions on both patients' health and the greater healthcare ecosystem.

H.R. 12 ensures every American has full access to vital reproductive healthcare and will stop the devastating health consequences for women when abortion access is banned or limited.

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

Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).

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

This MAGA majority has a bleak and nihilistic vision of our government. It is a vision where congressional power is wielded to take down political rivals; to force extremist beliefs on every American, particularly women; and to shamelessly sow division and fear, not to actually serve all Americans.

It is a vision where the idea of working together across party lines on behalf of all Americans is so anathema to the Republican Party that it can cause a Speaker to lose his gavel or rank-and-file Members of Congress to lose their primaries. It is where standing up against lies and for the Constitution results in death threats and where the integrity and core values of our country's institutions are continually chipped away.

This is an unacceptable way to govern. It is not governance at all. Americans deserve so much better. Let's stop playing these ridiculous games and get to work on the work that the people sent us to do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 969, I call up the bill (H.R. 6914) to require institutions of higher education to disseminate information on the rights of, and accommodations and resources for, pregnant students, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6914.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise as a mother, a grandmother, and a former college instructor, administrator, and student to support the Pregnant Students' Rights Act.

Mr. Speaker, in debating the tenets of this bill, I keep coming back to the dual mandate that it represents: more educated young women and more healthy babies carried to term.

It reminds me of the two great sources of hope and joy in my personal life, the first of which is education.

I have dedicated my life to helping others get a good education, as I was able to do. A good education is a major element of a good life.

The second great source of hope and joy in my life has been to rear a child. Having children and then grandchildren is the highest calling and truly the ultimate blessing.

Pursuing knowledge and having children: These are two virtues that carry immense social value and should be celebrated. I say should, because as is more often the case, modern society holds them in conflict with one another.

Pregnant students should not be faced with the dilemma that their academic and future success must be sacrificed to an unplanned pregnancy.

Data show carrying a child to term does not have to hinder one's educational journey. As a woman who understands the strength and resilience of other women, I found it unsurprising that student mothers outperformed their childless peers in the classroom.

It is a long-held belief that pregnancy should never be a barrier to a student completing her education. It is a belief enshrined in Title IX, which establishes that universities receiving Federal funds must provide equal opportunities for all students, regardless of pregnancy or parental status.

In order to receive Federal funding, campus classroom and education- related activities, from athletics to scholarships to lab work and more, must allow protections and accommodations for pregnant women. That means coaches cannot remove players, universities cannot revoke scholarships, and teachers cannot penalize absences due to medical reasons related to a pregnancy.

Yet, despite the legal equality for pregnant students established under Title IX, a significant challenge persists to informing women of the rights and the resources at their disposal. No expectant mother should be left in the dark.

The Pregnant Students' Rights Act seeks to bridge the gap between legal protections and practical awareness. It ensures that universities make information regarding pregnant students' rights and protections accessible through handouts, e-mails, and university websites.

This bill comes at a time when the nontraditional college student is becoming the norm. Over 20 percent of college students are parents, many of whom are single mothers. With more people entering college at every station of life, it is critical that we pass the Pregnant Students' Rights Act. All students should know the rights and protections available to them, including young, pregnant women.

Mr. Speaker, I support the Pregnant Students' Rights Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson), the sponsor of H.R. 6914.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), the chair of the Values Action Team.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am truly puzzled by the other side and some of the comments that are being made about this bill. It is a simple bill. It is not misleading. It is simply aimed at helping pregnant students get the support and information that they need if they are pursuing their education.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle used to be pro-women. I don't know what has happened to them, but, as one of my colleagues here said, pro-life is pro-woman. This bill is pro-women and pro-helping women getting an education. At the same time, they can carry their baby to term.

Now, nothing in this bill prevents a college or university from disseminating information about how to deal with pregnancy-related conditions, including miscarriages. We are not telling the colleges and universities everything that they have to say. We are simply saying you have to inform the students of the services available and the accommodations that need to be made.

All of us should have our hearts go out to women who face difficult pregnancies. We have all known them. My own daughter had four very difficult pregnancies.

I am deeply saddened that a woman and her baby face challenges and acknowledge that, for a pregnant student, these instances must be extremely stressful and sorrowful, but the purpose of this legislation is to tackle an issue unique to pregnant students on college campuses.

Some students are not aware of how they can advocate for themselves to balance student life and motherhood. Colleges and universities must provide reasonable accommodations for these students, such as excused absences and opportunities to make up classwork when a student does have to make frequent medical appointments to take care of herself and her baby.

This bill supports pregnant students, and I believe it deserves our support.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I am aghast. I am just aghast at how this bill is being characterized. It is being called an extreme piece of legislation.

We want pregnant students to be supported on their campuses and to know that they can be supported. It has nothing to do with criminalizing abortions. It has nothing to do with a nationwide abortion ban.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said something about healthy babies. We need pregnant women to have good resources and good healthcare so they can have healthy babies, but they want what they call comprehensive information to women.

What they mean is they want to encourage women to have abortions. And what is an abortion, Mr. Speaker? It is killing babies.

I have said it on the floor before. The word ``abortion'' sounds so clinical, so clean, but we need to say what it is. It is killing babies up to the point of their birth.

This is not an extreme piece of legislation. It is a sensible piece of legislation, and every person in this body should vote for it if you care about life. If you don't care about life, if all you want to do is destroy life, then vote ``no.''

That is the radical side. We are not the radical people. We know we have a culture of life. We have had a culture of life in this country. I fear it is eroding.

Mr. Speaker, this bill deserves the support of every person, particularly every woman, because we all can appreciate what it would be like to be in this situation and not have support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good), who is a subcommittee chairman for the Education and the Workforce Committee.

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

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

Madam Speaker, it is hard for me to believe that some of our colleagues have read this bill with the comments that they are making. It is a 5-page bill, basically. Maybe it takes up 7 pages, but that is mostly blank space.

There is nothing about overreach and control in this bill. Our colleagues are saying: Well, you don't provide healthcare. You don't provide food stamps. You don't provide other things.

Let me remind my colleagues that we are the Education and the Workforce Committee. We are in our lane. We are looking after pregnant students. Our job is to deal with education issues.

As I said in the Rules Committee, our colleagues can go to other committees to do these things. We are doing what we should be doing, which is, again, staying in our lane and helping pregnant students. They should know that if they are here as Members of Congress.

I wholeheartedly reject, also, the claim that this bill rolls back any rights of women. Nor does it put undue pressure on anyone other than college administrators to ensure that students are fully informed of their rights.

The Pregnant Students' Rights Act ensures that colleges and universities provide information about the rights and accommodations a college must directly offer a mother as she navigates pregnancy and being a parent to her child. Pregnant students deserve equal access to continue their postsecondary education.

I do not understand how connecting a student with information is an attack on any rights. Instead, this bill would decrease the likelihood that a student

is unaware of her opportunities, unlike today, where students may not receive consistent and timely information.

Nowhere in this bill does it prohibit colleges from disseminating any type of information. Nowhere in this bill does it dictate that the information be one-sided.

Since when did it become popular to attack providing information and resources to a mother for taking care of her baby?

Now, let's talk about one-sidedness, which our colleagues are saying. Colleges have been extremely public in support of abortion. Within minutes of the Supreme Court's decision on Roe v. Wade, ``one-sided'' press releases were published as if the issue had to do with higher education.

Here is the statement of the University of Michigan president: ``I strongly support . . . abortion services, and I will do everything in my power as president to ensure we continue to provide this critically important care.''

That is one shining example of the overt bias coming straight from the top of the university. I don't think anyone can make the claim that universities are not already pushing a one-sided agenda. However, this bill does not tie the hands of colleges from continuing to relay information, but it sure does ensure the student mothers are supported.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, so now I am truly confused. Our colleagues have come up one after the other and said that this bill is going to bring the end of the world for the ability for women to gain an abortion, which means killing their babies, and now we are told that this bill does nothing and is a do-nothing bill.

If it is a do-nothing bill, then I certainly hope our colleagues will vote for it because I know they have voted for other do-nothing bills on the floor. Maybe they should think of it as a do-nothing bill and all vote for it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

Madam Speaker, this bill is about supporting pregnant students. There are many resources for pregnant students, both on and off campus. This bill would connect students to these important resources. Many are nonprofit organizations, not just government programs.

In particular, I have heard of inspiring and innovative partnerships between colleges and nonprofit organizations to support student mothers.

For example, Belmont Abbey College in Belmont, North Carolina, has an incredible partnership with a noncampus maternity home, MiraVia. At MiraVia's college residence, expectant mothers are welcomed and provided with a place to live free of charge.

Pregnant students receive a private suite, meals, childcare, diapers, baby clothing and supplies, nursery furniture, life skill classes, personalized guidance to identify additional community resources, and coordination of education and career opportunities.

Belmont Abbey College gives pregnant mothers at MiraVia a full scholarship. This is just one example. I am sure many of my colleagues have more examples of support provided by colleges and universities for students and their babies.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, again, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have characterized this bill as radical, extreme, overreaching, and controlling students. There are so many negative things and then a couple have said, well, it does nothing.

It is sort of confusing. Again, if they have read the five-page bill, they would know that their characterizations of the bill are not at all what it is.

It doesn't do things they say they would like it to do, but that is not our role, Madam Speaker. Our role is to work with students on campuses.

I do think they are really confused about the nature of this bill, and I would encourage anybody watching this to read the bill. The bill, let's be crystal clear, is not about political advocacy. Nothing in this bill prevents a college counselor from discussing the full panoply of options available to pregnant students. Nothing in this bill prevents a pregnant college student from making her own decision.

Rather than political stunts, thanks to a Republican majority, this body is focused on real bills that will have a real effect on the real lives of Americans, particularly pregnant women in college. That is a good thing that we are doing, Madam Speaker.

The Pregnant Students' Rights Act is yet another one of the bills we have focused on in this Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to its passage. I urge everyone to vote for this bill.

Again, I think if our colleagues on the other side of the aisle care about pregnant women, and particularly pregnant women who are enrolled in college, they would vote for this.

If they don't, then I fear it is an indication that they don't care about women who want to carry their babies to term.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6914, the so-called Pregnant Students' Rights Act. This legislation requires institutions of higher education to distribute information about some of the rights of and accommodations for pregnant students. I opposed this legislation in committee and do so again today because, among other reasons, what is required in this bill is incomplete and biased by not providing information about comprehensive family planning resources and a full range of reproductive healthcare options for pregnant students.

Additionally, Republican amendments adopted in the committee added controversial misinformation to this bill, including the myth that having an abortion can lead to breast cancer. This claim has been refuted by the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

These scare tactics unmasked the true intention of this bill, which is to further the Republican agenda about attacking reproductive healthcare in their attempt to pass a nationwide ban on abortion.

As I mentioned to my Republican colleagues in committee, if you want to encourage pregnancy and childbirth, join with Democrats in passing legislation that will make childcare more affordable, support access to affordable healthcare and affordable housing, expand the Children's Health Insurance

Program, and join the rest of the world in offering paid family leave.

The intent of this bill is clear. It is another attempt to have politicians interfere in the very intensely personal decision of whether and when to have a child, a decision that should be made only by the pregnant student and their healthcare provider, not by judges, and certainly not by Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle truly cared about moms, they would join us in addressing the embarrassingly high maternal mortality rate in this country, which is especially concerning for women of color.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in committee, a pregnant student is not just the only one affected. If whomever impregnated the student got some rights and notification about paternity and child support obligations, that might help this information be more complete, but that is not in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I note that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle rejected an amendment to include information about comprehensive reproductive healthcare services.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the dynamic, distinguished, and dedicated Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Madam Speaker, it is clear from the debate on the bill that what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to happen is for every pregnant student to stay pregnant with consequences long beyond their time in college. That is why it is so important that we fund WIC, healthcare, childcare, and all the other things that are prowomen, prochildren, and profamily. This bill is not.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Underwood).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), the Democratic whip.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the full committee.

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

I include in the Record a letter from the Coalition for Pregnant and Parenting Students Advocacy, signed by 60 organizations, opposing H.R. 6914 because this legislation ``would not address the key barriers to pregnant students' educational attainment, and instead would further shame and stigmatize people for their pregnancy outcomes.''

January 18, 2024.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: The Coalition for

Pregnant and Parenting Students Advocacy is a diverse group

of advocates and experts dedicated to advancing civil rights

protections and institutional resources for pregnant and

parenting students. We are joined by the undersigned

organizations in voicing our opposition to H.R. 6914, the

Pregnant Students' Rights Act--a thinly veiled anti-abortion

law which would not address the key barriers to pregnant

students--educational attainment, and instead would further

shame and stigmatize people for their pregnancy outcomes.

This latest bill to ``protect the rights of pregnant

students'' falls far short of the protections that are

actually necessary for pregnant and parenting students and

their children.

Students who are pregnant and/or parents deserve to

complete their education free

from bias and harassment, in environments that support them

on their educational journeys. Unfortunately, pregnant and

parenting students are routinely stigmatized, discriminated

against, and denied the resources, accommodations, and

support they need to thrive in their educational

institutions.

More than 5.4 million college students in the United States

are parents, which is nearly one quarter of undergraduate

students and nearly one third of graduate students. Despite

earning higher GPAs than non-parenting students, parenting

college students are less likely to graduate. This is not due

to personal failing, but rather a lack of institutional

support and recognition of the unique barriers to college

completion for parenting students. Pregnant and parenting

students often experience feeling disconnected from the

larger education community and are not aware of who they can

speak to when they experience discrimination because of their

pregnancy or parenting status.

The proposed bill relies on anti-abortion language and

seeks to limit students' reproductive healthcare decisions.

This type of language is part of a deliverate strategy by the

anti-abortion movement to further legal grounds for a

national abortion ban now that th Supreme Court has

overturned the constitutional right to abortion care as

established in Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, the bill language

contrasts with existing legal protections for pregnant

students experiencing a range of outcomes related to their

pregnancies.

Our belief in personal autonomy and respect for every

person's capacity to make their own decisions--including

whether to continue their pregnancy or not--is at the core of

our work to support pregnant and parenting students. This

bill does not contain any meaningful supports that would

actually help pregnant and parenting students be able to

remain enrolled and meet their educational goals.

Such supports are critically needed, and include:

Strengthened Title IX protections; Nondiscrimination

protection at the state and local level; Accessible and

affordable child care, and increased funding for on-campus

child care; Access to early education and pre-kindergarten

services; Transportation access; Basic needs security

(including food, housing, clothing, etc.); Flexible school

attendance policies; Lactation accomodations; Less stigma and

shame around young parenthood; Increased accountability

measure for institutions who fail to protect pregnant and

parenting students; Federal funding to support campus Title

IX offices' work to prevent and investigate discrimination

against pregnant students; Mandatory data collection on

students' parenting statuses. Student Parent Outcomes Act of

2023, which would allow essential data collection on the

barriers to college graduation for pregnant and parenting

students. But sweeping legislation is necessary to ensure

that pregnant and parenting students and their families

are protected.

Although pregnant and parenting students face many

roadblocks, they can thrive when their educational

institutions listen to them, support them, and prevent

discrimination against them. While balancing their health,

caregiving responsibilities, and educational goals is

challenging, these added responsibilities often renew

students' dedication to their studies. While the decision to

parent and/or continue pregnancy is a personal one, the

barriers that pregnant and parenting students face are not.

This proposed bill would reinforce structural and

institutional bias and scrutiny of the decisions students

make regarding their personal lives.

We welcome the opportunity to have an open dialogue with

the sponsors of the ``Pregnant Students' Rights Act'' and

with any other members of Congress who are ready to step up

as the champion that pregnant and parenting students in our

nation need and deserve.

Sincerely,

The Coalition for Pregnant and Parenting Students Advocacy:

A Better Balance; Generation Hope; Healthy Teen Network;

Institute for Women's Policy Research; Justice and Joy

National Collaborative; National Women's Law Center; New

America Higher Education Program; Pregnant Scholar Initiative

at the Center for WorkLife Law; UNITE-LA.

Joined by:

Advocates for Youth; American Association of University

Women; American Federation of Teachers; American Humanist

Association; BreastfeedLA; California Women's Law Center;

Center for Freethought Equality; Center for Reproductive

Rights; Clearinghouse on Women's Issues; Colorado Teen Parent

Collaborative; End Rape On Campus; Equal Rights Advocates;

Family Equality; Feminist Majority Foundation; Guttmacher

Institute.

Hadassah; Harvard Law School; If/When/How: Lawyering for

Reproductive Justice; Indivisible, Ipas; League of Women

Voters of the United States; Legal Momentum, The Women's

Legal Defense and Education Fund; Michigan Organization on

Adolescent Sexual Health (MOASH); National Asian Pacific

American Women's Forum; National Association of Nurse

Practitioners in Women's Health; National Association of

Social Workers; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National

Center for Parent Leadership, Advocacy and Community

Empowerment; National Center for Transgender Equality;

National Council of Jewish Women; National Education

Association; National Family Planning & Reproductive Health

Association; National Latina Institute for Reproductive

Justice.

National Network to End Domestic Violence; National

Partnership for Women & Families; National Women's Health

Network; National Women's Political Caucus; Partners in

Abortion Care; Physicians for Reproductive Health; Planned

Parenthood Federation of America; Positive Women's Network-

USA; Power to Decide; Public Justice; Reproductive Freedom

for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America); SIECUS: Sex Ed

for Social Change; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center;

Stop Sexual Assault in Schools; The Hope Center at Temple

University; Union for Reform Judaism; Women of Reform

Judaism; Won't She Do It; YWCA USA.

Madam Speaker, the so-called Pregnant Students' Rights Act does nothing to strengthen pregnant students' existing protections and freedoms, and it leaves pregnant students in the dark about their rights under Federal civil rights law.

In fact, when committee Democrats tried to include information that would meaningfully support pregnant and parenting students in our committee's markup, Republicans voted down our amendments.

Democrats submitted amendments that would have included information about programs that promote the health and well-being of mothers and children, such as Medicaid and WIC. Coincidentally, these are the very programs Republican appropriators are right now actively working to roll back and defund.

The bill provides partial information, but no help. That is why dozens of health and reproductive rights organizations, the National Women's Law Center, the National Partnership for Women & Families, and the American Civil Liberties Union have stated that H.R. 6914, ``falls far short of the protections that are actually necessary for pregnant and parenting students and their children.''

In fact, I have a bill to get students information about their SNAP eligibility. I wish we were doing that right now.

Madam Speaker, college is hard enough already, and we should do our part to ensure that all pregnant students have the resources they need to succeed. The legislation before us does nothing to achieve that goal.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding, and I am very glad that my colleagues, and some from Texas, want to have the real truth discussed on this floor.

The real truth is that President Biden has not fostered nor encouraged open borders. In fact, the United States does not have open borders.

It would be truly an act of real leadership if Republicans would work with Democrats and the present administration to do as was done during the Reagan administration when, yes, whether you agreed or disagreed, immigration laws were passed. If this Republican contingent of Members, House and Senate, would work, we would find a resolution to some of the concerns that we have.

It is very clear that the impeachment of Secretary Mayorkas is not a solution. The present resolution that we have is not a solution.

Today, there are approximately 38,000 people in immigration detention, which is 4,000 more than what DHS is funded for. People without facts don't realize, somewhat similar to Trump, many of us are concerned about due process rights, but when accusations are made about one party is better than another, that is not true. Of course, there were those removed under title 42, and the Biden administration did that when that law was in place. The total is nearly equivalent to the number of people removed in all of fiscal 2019 in the past administration.

However, this administration wants to put forward reasonable and effective legislation so that we will get an additional 1,300 Border Patrol agents, 375 immigration judges, 1,600 asylum officers to speed up processing of asylum claims, 1,000 CBP officers, new detection technology for ports of entry, additional investigative capabilities to combat fentanyl trafficking, and $1.4 billion more to help communities receiving migrants.

Mr. Speaker, quickly, fentanyl is not an immigration issue. It is a criminal issue, a crime issue. It is where we have to come together with our law enforcement across America.

What I will say, the utilization of State laws that effectively are not governed by the Constitution, States do not have immigration authority, and blocking the Border Patrol is not an effective immigration tool. Causing a mother and two of her children to die is not an immigration tool. I don't want to be a part of it.

I want to be a part of the work that the President is doing. I thank the President and Vice President. I want this House to be helping in this work so that we can, in fact, have border solutions that work, where visas are able to be given to the appropriate people.

Limiting or removing parole does not work.

Additionally, 8.3 million relatives of U.S. citizens and legal residents are awaiting a green card. That does not work.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article written by David J. Bier titled: ``8.3 Million Relatives of U.S. Citizens & Legal Residents Awaited Green Cards in 2022.''

[May 17, 2023]

8.3 Million Relatives of U.S. Citizens & Legal Residents Awaited Green

Cards in 2022

(By David J. Bier)

The United States hit a new record of about 8.3 million

immigrants at various stages in its family-sponsored

permanent residence process in 2022--an increase of nearly 1

million since 2019. The staggering number of pending cases is

primarily the result of outdated caps on green cards, but

processing delays are also affecting a substantial number of

applicants.

The U.S. immigration system's current caps came into effect

in fiscal year 1992. Figure 1 breaks down the family-based

backlog into its two main categories: immediate relatives

(``uncapped'') and family preference immigrants (``capped'')

from 1992 to 2022. Immediate relatives--spouses, minor

children, and parents of adult U.S. citizens--have no direct

cap (though their admissions reduce the cap for the family

preference (or capped) immigrants from 480,000 to 226,000).

The immediate relative backlog has increased from about

73,000 in 1992 to over 1 million in 2022.

Family preference immigrants are spouses and children of

legal permanent residents, adult children of U.S. citizens,

and siblings of adult U.S. citizens, as well as any spouses

and minor children of those relatives. Immigrants who need a

cap number available to apply for a green card made up about

86 percent of the family-based backlog in 2022. From 1992 to

2022, the number of capped family-sponsored immigrants stuck

in the backlog increased from about 3.3 million to about 7.1

million. The cap is set at 226,000 annually.

These estimates differ significantly from the most commonly

referenced source for information on the family-sponsored

green card backlog: the State Department's annual immigrant

visa waiting list report. The numbers from that report are

shown in orange (Petition Approved-Wait Listed (Abroad)), but

that report does not include several groups of applicants. It

excludes the ``immediate relative'' or uncapped categories,

anyone waiting to apply inside the United States, and--most

importantly--anyone whose petition is yet to be adjudicated.

As Figure 2 shows, 3.6 million had a sponsor's petition

pending. This massive backlog in pending petitions is largely

because of the government's correct view that it shouldn't

waste resources adjudicating applications that will not

result in a green card being issued thanks to the cap.

The overall cap is set at 226,000, but it is divided into 5

categories based on the immigrant's marital status and

relationship to the U.S. sponsor:

1. F-1--Married adult children of U.S. citizens: 23,400

2. F-2A--Spouses and minor children of legal permanent

residents: 687,900

3. F-2B--Unmarried adult children of legal permanent

residents: 626,300

4. F-3--Unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens: 23,400

5. F-4--Siblings of U.S. citizens: 65,000

In addition, immigrants from each country have a separate

limit. No single birthplace can receive more than 7 percent

of the green cards, though 75 percent of the F-2A category

aren't counted against the cap.

As a result of the country caps and category caps,

applicants face wildly different potential wait times:

anywhere from 6 years to 233 years (effectively infinite). As

seen in Table 1, the odds of a new family-sponsor surviving

to be able to act as a sponsor when

a green card is available under the cap is low in many

category-country combinations. Virtually all new sponsors

from Mexico in 2022--outside the F-2A category--will die

before their family member receives a green card. In fact,

nearly 40 percent of all new sponsors in 2022 and 58 percent

of sponsors in non-F-2A categories will die before their

relatives get to immigrate. Even if the sponsor survives for

eternity, about 1.6 million immigrants currently in the

backlog will die before receiving a green card.

Even the shortest wait for F-2A category--for spouses and

minor children of green card holders--is unconscionable. 6 to

10 years to wait to be with your nuclear family? This would

be unimaginable in nearly all developed democracies. The

United States stands apart in having some of the most

restrictive immigration laws among wealthy countries.

Restricting immigration and parole is a lose-lose situation, as is rejecting DACA young people who are, in fact, ready to be paramedics, lawyers, doctors, teachers.

The White House calls on Congress to advance critical national security.

All of this is what President Biden is doing, and I would make the argument that this is what we should be doing in order to have real immigration reform. I ask that we do not support the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Res. 957-- denouncing the Biden administration's open-borders policies, condemning the national security and public safety crisis along the southwest border, and urging President Biden to end his administration's open- borders policies.

This resolution is yet another shameful effort to distract the American people with unviable solutions for immigration and border control--all in the face of inaction to prevent our government from shutting down once again.

This resolution does nothing to address legitimate issues at the southern border--instead, it repeats an old list of hyperbolic Republican talking points on immigration.

Rather than working constructively to address these issues, House Republicans continue to make the evidence-free argument that President Biden, Vice President Harris, and Secretary Mayorkas have intentionally created a ``national security and public safety crisis'' at the southern border.

This bill peddles the false narrative that President Biden has an open-borders policy and vi11ainizes immigrants fleeing dangerous situations.

And it does nothing to advance common sense solutions to improve our immigration system like creating better legal pathways, increasing processing capacity at ports of entry, or funding more immigration judges to reduce the asylum backlog.

It is truly shameful that just days until a government shutdown, my Republican colleagues continue to waste time with a resolution that repeats the same, tired, inaccurate talking points on immigration and the border.

Once again, Republicans talk a big game when it comes to immigration and border security--but instead of trying to pass thoughtful and bipartisan legislation that might fix the problems in our immigration system, their resolution accomplishes nothing.

Let's look at the facts.

Today, there are approximately 38,000 people in immigration detention, which is 4,000 more than what DHS is funded for and roughly what the Trump administration averaged in Fiscal Year 2018.

The Biden administration has also significantly increased removals (in ways that many in our caucus worry violates due process).

Since the end of Title 42 last year, the Biden administration has removed or returned to Mexico over 470,000 individuals, including over 78,000 individual members of family units, including children.

The total is nearly equivalent to the number of people removed in ALL of fiscal year 2019 under the Trump administration.

This is hardly an open border.

Time and again, my colleagues across the aisle have refused to support additional resources and personnel for the border.

In 2021, all but six current House Republicans voted against the Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal, which provided additional funding to ports of entry to combat smuggling of people and drugs, and for modernization.

All but two current House Republicans voted against providing robust funding for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and border security operations in the Fiscal Year 2023 appropriations omnibus legislation.

That bill provided more than $17 billion to CBP, including funding for an additional 300 U.S. Border Patrol agents--the first increase since 2011.

The omnibus also included $60 million to hire 125 CBP officers and $70 million for nonintrusive inspection technology to detect narcotics and firearms at ports of entry.

In October of 2023, the Biden administration sent Congress a supplemental funding request, which included an additional $13.6 billion for border security.

Yet House Republicans refuse to schedule a vote on this funding request, which would provide the Biden administration the resources it needs to secure the border and provide additional support for communities receiving migrants.

More specifically, this supplemental funding would pay for the following:

an additional 1,300 Border Patrol agents;

375 immigration judges and 1,600 asylum officers to speed up processing of asylum claims;

1,000 CBP officers with a focus on countering fentanyl;

new detection technology for ports of entry;

additional investigative capabilities to combat fentanyl trafficking; and

$1.4 billion more in grants to help communities receiving migrants, among other investments.

Democrats have put forward good faith bipartisan solutions to actually secure the border by expanding lawful pathways to relieve pressure on the border and adequately fund government agencies.

By forcing a vote on a meaningless resolution filled with empty rhetoric, Republicans are showing they have no real solutions to address the border. Members should not take the bait.

In sum, this resolution is a pitiful attempt to continue the politicization of our government's ability to function.

All a vote would do is put every Republican who supports it on record pushing this extreme agenda.

This is not what Congress should be focused on. Democrats and President Biden will stay focused on putting people over politics and keeping our government funded and functioning for the American people.

As such, I ask my colleagues to vote NO on this shameful resolution providing for debate on these highly politicized and dangerous bills.