Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1137, I call up the bill (H.R. 529) to extend the customs waters of the United States from 12 nautical miles to 24 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States, consistent with Presidential Proclamation 7219, 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 the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Extending Limits of U.S. Customs Waters Act, introduced by my good friend, Representative Mike Waltz. This bill would double the current distance that Customs and Border Patrol can enforce U.S. laws from 12 to 24 nautical miles off the coast of the United States. Congress should pass this legislation to protect America's national security and economic interests.

CBP is responsible for enforcing America's trade laws. With this expanded area of operations, the agency can better protect intellectual property, fight illegal dumping of products, and ensure America is paid the customs revenues we are owed.

Other law enforcement agencies, like the Coast Guard, already operate at the 24-nautical-mile-limit. CBP must be empowered fully to carry out its responsibilities, protect our national security, and enforce our trade laws.

Currently, CBP must rely on Presidential proclamations for legal authority to pursue or board vessels more than 12 nautical miles off our coast. In some cases, courts have created uncertainty by questioning the validity of this authority. Congress can use its legislative power to give the agency more certainty and the ability to operate more effectively in the future.

Making this change will also help keep American families safer. International crime rings smuggle drugs through our sea and airports. In fiscal year 2022, the Air and Marine Operations division of CBP captured hundreds of thousands of pounds of illegal drugs, including over 200,000 pounds of cocaine and 146 pounds of the deadly fentanyl poisoning Americans. More than 80 percent of those drugs were seized on the water.

This bill makes it easier to stop illegal drugs from reaching our border and entering our communities. This bill also makes it easier for us to end the abuses of human trafficking.

It is not just drugs that are smuggled into the United States. Humans are also being trafficked, and oftentimes by sea. By expanding in law the area in which they can operate, CBP agents will have more flexibility to capture and arrest criminals smuggling drugs and people into our country.

This bill won bipartisan approval in the Ways and Means Committee last year because it is a commonsense approach to stopping international crime rings from breaking our laws and harming our communities. It is a change Customs and Border Patrol has asked us for and of which the Biden White House has previously supported.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill helps give Customs and Border Protection the certainty to know that they can enforce U.S. trade laws without fear of their authority being challenged in court.

Allowing our Customs agents the authority to go out 24 miles off the coast is consistent with what both Republican and Democratic Presidents have supported. This bill helps CBP protect the livelihoods of American workers. When foreigners cheat our U.S. trade system and avoid paying the rightful duties they owe, it is American workers and small businesses that suffer.

Improved trade enforcement not only helps our economy, but it will also help save American lives. Too many families know the pain of losing a loved one from a drug like fentanyl that should have never come into our country.

Customs and Border Protection needs the certainty and operational flexibility to catch smugglers before their deadly drugs reach our shore. We need to end the current inconsistency by which Congress has fully authorized the Coast Guard to pursue and board suspicious vessels up to 24 miles off of our coast but has not done the same for CBP.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation, 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 1085, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 86) expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, working families are struggling to make ends meet, to afford to put food on their table, clothes on their backs, and gasoline in their cars, all because of the inflation crisis that has been fueled by Washington Democrats' runaway spending and President Biden's failed economic policies.

The last thing America needs is a carbon tax. It would raise energy prices and harm American competitiveness. It would put American workers and job creators at a disadvantage to appease the President's wealthy environmentalist donors and their far-left agenda.

The Biden administration is already giving billion-dollar corporations and big banks massive tax breaks under the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. This is the same administration that is celebrating spending over a trillion dollars and counting on special interest green energy handouts, including electric vehicle tax credits for wealthy households, while funneling American tax dollars to countries like China.

For working families, a carbon tax would not only raise prices at the pump but also at the grocery store. It would raise the cost of doing business on Main Street at a time when America's small businesses are struggling under the highest interest rates in over two decades. Those who can least afford to pay more, like seniors on fixed incomes, would suffer the most.

Today, Congress can send a loud and clear message to the American people and the Biden administration that says: Not on our watch. Not on our watch will there be an anti-American family, anti-American worker, pro-China carbon tax, while trillions of those same hardworking Americans' tax dollars go to line the pockets of the wealthy and well connected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, America's working families have paid more than their fair share for the failed economic policies of Washington Democrats and the Biden administration. Prices are up over 18 percent since President Biden took office.

Why is that?

I say it is because the President is willing to sacrifice the well- being of working families to reward the wealthy and well connected.

In the very first month of President Biden's term, inflation was 1.4 percent, and then Washington Democrats, under one-party control of the White House, the House, and the Senate, added more than $10 trillion of new spending, which fueled the inflation fire that has now caused inflation to rise almost 20 percent since Joe Biden took the oath of office.

That is why every American is paying more to put food on their table, clothes on their backs, and gasoline in their car, because of the failed economic policies of the Washington Democrats and the Biden administration.

This, a carbon tax, would simply add insult to that injury for so many Americans. It would raise the cost of raising a family and the cost of doing business. It would dull America's competitive edge and penalize American job creators and innovators against China.

The American people, Mr. Speaker, cannot afford, nor should they be forced to pay for, a liberal agenda that imposes a carbon tax on American families and American small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend Dr. Burgess for his steadfast leadership working in a bipartisan and bicameral manner to bring this important piece of legislation forward.

This bill ensures that the Congressional Budget Office, the official scorekeepers of Congress, is more accurately reflecting the long-term fiscal impact of policies; in this case, policies that have the potential to lower the cost of the ever-growing Federal spending on healthcare, a major part of our Nation's annual budget.

It also has the added benefit of encouraging preventive healthcare policies that can lower the risk of illness and chronic disease among our fellow citizens, leading to a healthier Nation.

As chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, these are exactly the type of policies I want our committee to consider, which can truly upend the healthcare system as we know it.

In short, this bill promotes both the fiscal health of the country and the physical health of its people.

As the former Republican leader of the House Budget Committee, I have had the honor of fighting alongside Dr. Burgess in the trenches of fiscal policy. Together, we have worked to ensure CBO is aiding, not preventing, investments in bold healthcare reform.

This bill is a key victory in every effort.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7024) to make improvements to the child tax credit, to provide tax incentives to promote economic growth, to provide special rules for the taxation of certain residents of Taiwan with income from sources within the United States, to provide tax relief with respect to certain Federal disasters, to make improvements to the low-income housing tax credit, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act is pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-American.

The legislation locks in $600 billion in pro-growth tax policies by restoring three key provisions from President Trump's successful 2017 tax reform that have a proven record of creating millions of jobs, raising workers' wages, and sparking more investment and economic growth right here at home.

This bill restores full R&D expensing, interest deductibility, and 100 percent expensing. Each of these policies will help American businesses grow, create jobs, and sharpen their competitive advantage against China.

This will create over $70 billion in new R&D investment and over 900,000 new jobs, increase small business investment by $400 billion, and generate $58 billion in additional take-home pay for American workers.

Today, America's small businesses are being pummeled by high prices and interest rates. This package raises the expensing cap for small businesses beyond the limit set in the 2017 tax reform, and it cuts paperwork for those small businesses by updating the IRS form, last changed when Eisenhower was President.

This bill is not only helping businesses here at home, but this tax relief package also ensures America is standing with our key economic partner, Taiwan, by ending double taxation on American workers and businesses operating in both countries.

The child tax credit provisions reflect the same structure established by the 2017 tax reform. We maintain work requirements while enhancing the benefit to support families crushed by today's inflation and remove the penalty for families with multiple children. It is both pro-worker and pro-family.

The reforms include meaningful tax relief for those affected by natural and manmade disasters and encourage more construction of safe, affordable housing.

At the end of the day, we are replacing bad tax policy with good tax policy by cutting off funding for the employee retention tax credit, a COVID-era program that costs six times its original amount and is so riddled with fraud that the IRS put it on its Dirty Dozen list of the worst scams in America. This will save America taxpayers over $75 billion.

There is a reason that over 450 groups, representing Americans from all walks of life, support this legislation. That includes job creators, those supporting workers and families, and those defending the right to life. It is a strong, commonsense, bipartisan step forward in providing urgent tax relief for working families and small businesses.

Parents and Main Street communities across this country will see lower taxes, more opportunity, and greater financial security after we pass this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the pending motion be extended by 20 minutes, to be controlled by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), who is the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes), who has led the legislation on research and development.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube), the author of the disaster tax language.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Speaker, this legislation strengthens our workforce.

There is a report from experts at the Joint Committee on Taxation which confirms that the child tax credit changes will have a net positive effect on jobs and workforce participation can be found in the following location: https://www.jct.gov/getattachment/dce63c47-9b1d- 4f10-8a55-2471681f7685/x-6-24.pdf

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Evans).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Feenstra).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter signed by a dozen pro-life organizations, including Concerned Women for America, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, and the Eagle Forum in support of this legislation and its important profamily and prowork provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

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

Mr. Speaker, I confirm for my colleagues that this bill preserves existing safeguards of the child tax credit and does not open the door for illegal immigrants to claim the credit. No other tax credit or deduction can match the child tax credit's protections from improper claims combined with safeguards against payments to non-U.S. citizens.

Mr. Speaker, this is a win for millions of small businesses, a win for millions of working families. This is a win for America. I urge the body to support this great piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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, President Biden has hidden from the American people his knowledge of and role in his family's overseas business dealings.

Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, showing his knowledge and involvement, President Biden still refuses to come clean. So far, two key DOJ witnesses have failed to show for congressionally subpoenaed depositions after DOJ directed them not to appear. Other witnesses have refused to answer certain questions from investigators and the Biden administration has refused to turn over many of the documents requested by Congress, claiming this inquiry was not properly authorized.

Let there be no mistake: Today's vote asserts Congress' authority to conduct an impeachment inquiry and gather all the evidence to proceed with our investigation.

The American people deserve answers.

Here is what we know so far: The existence of multiple email aliases suggest that Joe Biden was deliberately trying to conceal his activities from the public, including one-on-one communications with a key Hunter Biden business partner during his Vice Presidency.

We also learned that investigators were blocked from looking into potential campaign finance crimes by the Biden campaign. Hunter Biden had only known Kevin Morris, a Democrat donor, for 2 months before Morris started settling his tax debts to the tune of about $2 million and then spent about $3 million more to cover Hunter's lifestyle.

In the midst of the 2020 campaign, just weeks before Super Tuesday primary elections that would decide the future of Joe Biden's candidacy, Morris emailed Hunter Biden's business associates and there was ``considerable risk personally and politically'' to not filing his late taxes, but the only person who faced political risk was Joe Biden, whose campaign the whistleblowers had reason to believe Morris was speaking to.

As Members of Congress, we have to abide by campaign finance limits and so must the President. Morris' millions in payments to cover Hunter Biden's taxes and other financial obligations appeared to the whistleblowers to be an illegal donation to the Biden campaign.

Unfortunately, they were blocked from investigating further. Time and again, when investigators found a lead that pointed to Joe Biden, DOJ stepped in and prevented them from pursuing it.

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the evidence released by the whistleblowers, the DOJ indicted Hunter Biden on nine tax charges, including three felonies. Everything the whistleblowers told us about the Hunter Biden tax case has been proven

right. I am convinced they are also right about the links to Joe Biden they were prevented from following.

Mr. Speaker, Congress owes it to the American people to follow the facts wherever they lead and pass this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act empowers patients and will lower healthcare costs for millions of Americans.

This bipartisan bill has been a collaborative effort, and I thank my colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Education and the Workforce Committee for their partnership.

American families have struggled for far too long to afford the cost of their healthcare. What is worse is they have been unable to anticipate those costs because our current system makes it nearly impossible to figure out the actual price for almost any type of treatment, medicine, drug, or procedure.

The legislation before us would ensure timely and accurate details about the cost of care, treatments, and services are available and accessible before a patient goes into the doctor's office or hospital.

Hospitals, insurance companies, labs, imaging providers, and others would be required to publicly disclose their prices, creating incentives to lower prices across the board. This bill would increase access to care by combating healthcare consolidation, which reduces options and drives up costs.

It also would take an important step to address the soaring costs of prescription drugs by requiring health insurers and PBM middlemen to disclose negotiated drug rebates and discounts. It would ease the financial burden on our seniors, widen access to more affordable generic drugs, and arm employers with vital drug price information.

This bill would make important investments in training programs for new doctors to help address the healthcare workforce shortage and further invest in hospitals that serve high Medicaid populations.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill to deliver a healthcare system that is more accessible and affordable for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jefferson College in Hillsboro, Missouri on its 60th anniversary.

Founded in 1963, the college provides post-secondary education at its campuses in Imperial, Arnold, and Hillsboro, as well as online. Jefferson College offers customized business and industry training, continuing education courses and technical career programs. The college has adapted to the times, working to adjust its educational opportunities as changes occur in the needs of the workplace.

More than 27,000 students of all ages have graduated from Jefferson College in its first 60

years. Many have gone on to become community and business leaders, educators, healthcare and technical professionals or law enforcement officers.

The university is led by Dr. Dena McCaffrey, its 8th president and under her leadership, JeffCo is poised to continue its successful educational mission through the next 60 years. It is my great pleasure to congratulate Jefferson College on this milestone today before the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker Pro Tempore, I rise today to honor Dick Cook of Crystal City, Missouri, a legend in high school sports who is being inducted into the Missouri Sports Hall of Fame.

For 49 years, Mr. Cook coached at the high school level--34 of those years at Crystal City. Most of the time, he coached track and field, leading his 1984 and 1989 girls' teams to state championships in Class 2. During his time as coach, Crystal City earned 16 state championships by individuals and relay teams in track.

In the 1970s, he started the Jefferson County Jets Track Club, an AAU program that produced athletes who competed in the Big 8 Conference with one reaching the Olympics. He began his career in Poplar Bluff and coached a season at Herculaneum as well. But he spent most of his career in his hometown of Crystal City where he graduated high school in 1956 and graduated from the University of Missouri in 1960.

No one could be prouder of his achievements than his wife Mary Ellen, his son Richard, and daughters Mary Beth, Jill, and Amy Jo. I congratulate Coach Cook on his induction into the Missouri Sports Hall of Fame this year and I am pleased to share his accomplishments today before the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Coach Marty Hauck, of Rolla High School in Missouri, on being awarded the 2023 USA Wresting Greco-Roman Developmental Coach of the Year Award.

As coach of both men's and women's Rolla High School wrestling teams. His successes extend beyond the high school level as he's been named world championship coach three times by Team USA and remains the coach of the USA U-17 world championship team.

Coach Hauck continues to have remarkable success with Rolla High School's wrestling team. The school boasts 48 state qualifiers, 29 state placers. and 4 champions under his leadership. This impressive record is a testament to Coach Hauck's talent, passion, and commitment to inspiring each one of his student-athletes to reach their full potential.

Leadership is not just something you do but is a defining characteristic in people. I take great pride in recognizing Coach Hauck's exceptional contributions to the sport of wrestling. both within the community of Rolla and on the world stage. His achievements serve as an inspiration to aspiring athletes and coaches alike of what it means to be a leader. On behalf of the entire Eighth Congressional District, we thank Coach Hauck for his dedicated service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sgt Antonio ``Tony'' Mullen, of Rolla, Missouri, on his honorable service and sacrifice in the U.S. Army. Sergeant Mullen is being celebrated by Helping a Hero Organization for his distinguished valor and dedication to the security of our country.

Sgt. Mullen grew up in a family of veterans and decided to follow in their footsteps. After the tragic events of 9/11 he joined the US Army in 2003 Tony had a knack for mechanical things and became a heavy/light wheel mechanic. He performed his basic training in Fort Leonard Wood, MO, and from there he was sent to Korea where he served for a year. After that he was sent back to Missouri for a few months before he was deployed to Iraq.

In the army, Sgt. Mullen found the sense of community that he had been searching for but had yet to experience. Sgt. Mullen was deployed to Iraq when his second child was born. He was not able to get home for her birth but was able to stay on the phone during the entire labor and delivery. He named her America; he wanted her to know that he risked his life for his country and would risk it for her forever.

In the line of duty, Mullen was deployed to Iraq, where his Forward Operating Base was attacked. He sustained several life-altering injuries while serving his country but never wavered in his love of his country and the brothers he fought beside him. Tony has recently completed work on a bachelor's degree in criminal justice and hopes to become a drug and alcohol counselor for military veterans.

Mullen and his wife, Lacy, are the proud parents of 4 children, Darian, America, Dalayla, and Israel.

The men and women who defend our Nation will always have my support. On behalf of the entire eighth congressional district, we thank Sgt Antonio ``Tony'' Mullen for his dedicated service to this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall No. 325 (Banks Amendment #63 to H.R. 2670), ``yea'' on rollcall No. 326 (Roy Amendment #64 to H.R. 2670), ``nay'' on rollcall No. 327 (On the Motion to Recommit H.R. 2670), and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 328 (Final Passage of H.R. 2670).

Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 304 (Gaetz Amendment 22 to H.R. 2670), ``aye'' on rollcall No. 305 (Greene Amendment 23 to H.R. 2670), ``aye'' on rollcall No. 306 (Davidson Amendment 24 to H.R. 2670), ``aye'' on rollcall No. 307 (Ogles Amendment 25 to H.R. 2670), ``aye'' on rollcall No. 308 (Roy Amendment 30 to H.R. 2670), ``aye'' on rollcall No. 309 (Roy Amendment 31 to H.R. 2670), ``aye'' on rollcall No. 310 (Crane Amendment 32 to H.R. 2670), ``aye'' on rollcall No. 311 (Norman Amendment 33 to H.R. 2670), ``aye'' on rollcall No. 312 (Norman Amendment 33 to H.R. 2670), ``aye'' on rollcall No. 313 (Norman Amendment 34 to H.R. 2670), ``aye'' on rollcall No. 314 (Boebert Amendment 35 to H.R. 2670), ``aye'' on rollcall No. 315 (Waltz Amendment 41 to H.R. 2670), ``aye'' on rollcall No. 316 (Good Amendment 47 to H.R. 2670), ``aye'' on rollcall No. 317 (Greene Amendment 48 to H.R. 2670), ``aye'' on rollcall No. 318 (Hageman Amendment 49 to H.R. 2670), ``aye'' on rollcall No. 319 (Davidson Amendment 50 to H.R. 2670), ``aye'' on

rollcall No. 320 (Davidson on behalf of Roy Amendment 51 to H.R. 2670), ``aye'' on rollcall No. 321 (Gaetz Amendment 52 to H.R. 2670), ``aye'' on rollcall No. 322 (Biggs Amendment 55 to H.R. 2670), ``aye'' on rollcall No. 323 (Perry Amendment 56 to H.R. 2670), and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 324 (Burlison Amendment 62 to H.R. 2670).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Southern Missouri Community Health Center, of West Plains, Missouri, on celebrating its 20th anniversary of service to the Greater West Plains Community and surrounding areas.

Since receiving its first patient in February 2003, the Southern Missouri Community Health Center has provided access to excellent quality, affordable medical, dental and mental healthcare to all individuals in need in Howell, Oregon and Ripley counties and the surrounding area.

With more than 65 employees, including physicians, nurse practitioners, dentists, dental hygienists, and licensed clinical social workers, SMCHC provides service to approximately 9,000 individuals annually. The Southern Missouri Community Health Center is a critical element of the local healthcare system that improves healthcare outcomes by allowing individuals to overcome barriers to healthcare access, and by acting as a front-line response to unexpected crises, such as natural disasters, and emerging healthcare crises. Governed by a patient majority board, the SMCHC ensures that each of its patients are the top priority.

The impact of the Southern Missouri Community Health Center stretches far beyond healthcare, as the Center makes a long-lasting positive mark on lives of the members of its community.

It is my great pleasure to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Southern Missouri Community Health Center and applaud its hard work and commitment to providing excellent, accessible services to its community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Chad Riegel who will retire from the United States Navy on July 1, 2023.

I would like to commemorate BU1 Chad Riegel for his incredibly successful career. He is part of the Naval Mobile Construction Battalion, known as the Navy Seabees. His unit was one of the first to arrive in Afghanistan after 9/11, arriving in October of 2001. They were tasked with building facilities to accommodate follow-on military forces, including camps for military personnel and prisons for al-Qaeda and Taliban forces.

Chad has deployed all around the world, traveling to at least 22 countries. He was in active duty from September of 1997 to September of 2002, serving in the NMCB 133 and from November of 2012 to November of 2013, serving in the NMCB 15. He has been serving in reserve duty since September of 2007 in the NMCB 15 and in the Construction Battalion Maintenance Unit 202.

Throughout his service, he went on three tours, one to Bosnia in 1998 and two to Afghanistan, one in 2001 and another in 2013. Chad has received several medals to commemorate his service and dedication, including a National Defense Service Ribbon, a

Navy Battle E Ribbon, an Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal with 1 bronze star, 2 Army Achievement Medals, a Meritorious Unit Commendation Ribbon, a Sea Service Deployment Ribbon with 3 bronze stars, a Good Conduct Award, a Humanitarian Service Medal, a M-16 Expert Rifle Qualifier, 2 NATO Medals, a Navy/Marine Corps Achievement Medal, a Navy Reserve Meritorious Service Medal, an Expert Pistol Shot Medal, a Seabee Combat Warrior Service Medal, and an Afghanistan Campaign Medal with 1 bronze star.

Chad and his wife, Jenni are parents to two children, Kaylee and Max. It is my honor to recognize Mr. Chad Riegel's accomplishments and wish him a wonderful retirement spent with his family and those close to him.