Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. 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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Van Duyne).
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of legislation introduced by my good friend from Minnesota, a strong voice for the voiceless, Mrs. Fischbach.
The Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Families Act blocks a disastrous rule proposed by the Biden administration which would strip funding from pregnancy resource centers.
As we heard in last week's markup, those who oppose this bill have even admitted that they are pro-life starting only 2 seconds after you are born.
Ironically, so many on the other side of the aisle, most of whom can't even define what a woman is, not only share in this delusion, but also claim to be the party of women's rights.
Now, I am sorry. We just heard that these centers are masquerading as women's healthcare facilities. You want to talk about masquerading as providing women's healthcare? Let's look at their pro-abortion facilities. They are not providing healthcare. Mr. Speaker, 97 to 98 percent of the services that they provide are abortions, not healthcare services.
My colleagues on the left claim that it is somehow worse for a mother to have access to the vital services offered by pregnancy resource centers. In fact, the gentlewoman from California defined them as extremists.
Let's explore the services that these pregnancy centers offer that my colleagues find so offensive and so extreme.
Let's see. How does it hurt for a young family to have access to free prenatal vitamins, formula, and diapers? How about free maternity and baby clothing? How about educational classes on unplanned pregnancy, childbirth, parenting, and adoption information? How about free life skills training and help with housing? How extreme? How offensive?
As is clear by the nearly 1 million women assisted by pregnancy resource centers in 2022, they provide an extraordinary service to women and families across the country.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Speaker, Texas is home to 200 pregnancy resource centers, and I will not stand by as the Biden administration attempts to take away choice from pregnant women, nor will I stand by and allow them to block funding for the vital programs offered by these pregnancy centers.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his tremendous leadership on this and so many other important issues, including life issues. I thank Michelle Fischbach for her brave and courageous leadership, and our Speaker for making sure that this legislation got to the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, at a New Jersey pregnancy resource center dinner, two women, through tears of joy, expressed their deep and abiding gratitude for the incredible love, respect, and care that persuaded them to reverse their decision to abort their babies. They spoke about how desperate they were, even hopeless. They spoke of the pressure that they felt to abort, until they met the director of the pregnancy resource center, who reached out to both of them in a gentle and nonjudgmental way.
They chose life, and thanked God, the director, and the pregnancy resource center for helping them to avert the loss of their babies' lives.
Then, two teenaged girls took to the podium and spoke about their lives--school, sports, friends--and their reverence for the sanctity of all human life. Near the end of their remarks--I didn't see this coming nor did many people in the room--they turned toward the director of the center and thanked her for being there for their moms through those difficult times and said: If you weren't there for them, we would be dead. Two wonderful young women talking about how without the pregnancy center, they would have been dead.
There are more than 2,700 pregnancy resource centers throughout the United States. Each and every one of them is an oasis of love, compassion, empathy, respect, and care for both mothers and their precious children.
Americans agree with the noble work of pregnancy care centers. The new Marist national poll, released just yesterday, found that 83 percent of all Americans, including 75 percent of Democrats, support--I say again support--pregnancy resource centers.
There is a growing number of people throughout this country in this great human rights movement who really protect the unborn child and their mothers and stand with women and their children. We reject the violence of abortion, dismemberment, child beheadings, and abortion pills.
How does the pill work? It literally starves the baby to death. That is how they die; they starve to death.
Congresswoman Michelle Fischbach's legislation prohibits Biden's new policy proposal that discriminates against pregnancy resource centers. The bill, the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act ensures that pregnancy resource centers cannot be excluded or restricted from receiving TANF funding as proposed by the rule that is being pushed by the President.
The Biden administration and some Governors and lawmakers continue, Mr. Speaker, to smear and misrepresent the noble work of pregnancy resource centers. We can't allow that to happen.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. 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. ____ January 15, 2024. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of Catholic Vote, representing the voices of millions of Catholics across America who seek to renew our country and our culture, I am writing to voice our support for H.R. 6914, ``The Pregnant Students' Rights Act'' and H.R. 6918, ``Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act.''
Women who choose life of their children, and the private organizations that support them, are under unprecedented attack by those who think abortion is the only answer. Unfortunately, this pro-death approach is endorsed by both the Biden administration as well as the Democratic Party. The result is that women who find themselves in situations they did not prepare for falsely believe they are alone and that the only way out is the death of their unborn child.
H.R. 6914, introduced by Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-IA, would amend the Higher Education Act to require higher education institutions to distribute information about the rights of pregnant students and the resources available to them at the school, via their website, student handbooks, emails, and during student orientations. The bill also reinforces current law requiring schools to adopt and publish procedures for students to file complaints of discrimination related to their sex, pregnancy, or parental status by imploring colleges to make these existing protections and accommodations more widely known.
H.R. 6918, introduced by Rep. Michelle Fischbach, R-MN, would block a Biden Administration rule that could prohibit states from giving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds to pregnancy centers which support the life of both the mother and unborn child.
Currently there have been hundred of physical attacks on pregnancy resource centers. It is no surprise that the Biden administration would tacitly endorse those attacks by attempting to divert resources away from these lifesaving and life affirming entities. Joe Biden would prefer to make it harder for moms to choose life for their unborn child and take care of themselves and their baby. If this rule takes effect, women in America will have fewer alternatives to abortion and less access to maternal care.
The passage of these bills should not be controversial; however, the extremism of the Democratic Party has made it clear that if you are a young mother who chooses life they will make it harder for you to prosper. CatholicVote will score in favor of both H.R. 6914, ``The Pregnant Students' Rights Act'' and H.R. 6918, ``Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act'' in our annual scorecard for the 118th Congress. Sincerely, Thomas McClusky, Director of Government Affairs, CatholicVote. ____ House Committee Votes To Protect Pregnancy Resource Centers From Discrimination--SBA Pro-Life America (By Mary Owens, January 11, 2024)
Today, the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee passed the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act, legislation to ensure that pregnancy centers cannot be discriminated against from receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funding. The House is expected to vote on the bill as early as next week.
This bill is in response to the Biden administration's proposed Health and Human Services (HHS) rule that discriminates against life-affirming non-profits. If the rule goes into effect, it could render pregnancy centers ineligible for this funding. In December, SBA Pro-Life Anrerica and the Charlotte Lozier Institute submitted a public comment pointing out how the rule is unfair and inaccurate.
The national pro-life group SBA Pro-Life America celebrated the committee's work in a statement:
The Biden administration is working overtime to prove they are not pro-choice, but pro-abortion by proposing this discriminatory rule and ignoring the majority of Americans who support public funding of pregnancy resource centers,'' said the Honorable Marilyn Musgrave, SBA Pro-Life America's vice president of government affairs. ``The nearly 3,000 pregnancy resource centers nationwide provide women with medical, material and emotional support for themselves and their families. We are grateful to the committee for passing this bill that prevents discrimination against centers and protects their ability to continue receiving TANF funds to help moms and families.
Thank you to Chairman Jason Smith and Representatives Michelle Fischbach, Claudia Tenney and Smith for championing this important legislation and getting it through committee. We urge the House to pass this commonsense legislation.''
The proposed rule is the latest in a string of political attacks on life-affirming organizations.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source