Providing for Consideration of H.R. Pregnant Students' Rights Act; Providing for Consideration of H.R. Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act; and Providing for Consideration of H. Res. 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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to comment on H.R. 3058, the Recruiting Families Using Data Act.

There is an undeniable shortage of foster care placements in America, and an even more drastic lack of foster families with individual foster parents that can care for our Foster Youth. Furthermore, it is imperative that Congress ensures that foster children receive the highest standards of care in all current and future placements. This includes ensuring the availability placements that can be respectful of all of the individualities that foster youth hold.

That is why, in my capacity as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, who has jurisdiction over this legislation, as well as the Chairwoman on the Congressional Caucus on foster youth (otherwise referred to as CCFY) I am proud to support this bill. I will also point out that Congressman Kildee is one of our strongest advocates on the Congressional Caucus on Foster Youth, and I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation alongside my fellow CCFY cochairs, Representatives Bacon and Scanlon.

I often reflect on an instance that occurred when I was age 14, upon a visit to my aunt in my home town. I was awakened in the middle of the night with the police at the door. They ushered in a family of twelve children. My aunt was identified as an emergency placement for these foster youth out of a limited number of adults who had been previously vetted to be foster parents. At midnight, I suddenly worked with my aunt to gather the needed supplies for these children, including items like bedding.

While my aunt was an outstanding foster parent, moments like these occur frequently and exemplify the phenomenon that many youth feel when they enter care. Placements too often feel to youth like they are thrown to a stranger who the state has hired at random who is suddenly an authority of a child's life.

Thankfully, the Recruiting Families Using Data Act takes several important steps that can ensure that a foster care placement feels less alien to a new foster youth and is a more comfortable place for foster children to land during a tumultuous time in their lives.

One provision in this legislation is its requirement that whenever possible, the existing family of youth who are entering foster care are consulted regarding the most appropriate placement for the youth. This serves to not only maintain family bonds, but also increases the possibility that a foster placement has cultural competency with respect to a youth's background.

This bill importantly also includes measures to improve cultural competency of foster placements. This is through its provision that states, ``diligently recruit potential foster and adoptive families that reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of the children in foster care''. For example, we know that African American youth are disproportionately overrepresented in the foster care system however, there is not a like amount of African American Foster Parents.

Another anecdote that often comes to mind is a little girl of mixed heritage who I knew that ran away from her foster home and chose to come to my own home. It came to light that her reasoning for these actions was because she was in a foster home with white parents, and she knew that my own daughter would actually be able to handle her African American hair in a way that her white foster parents were not able to. After working with these foster parents to improve their ability to help the girl with her hair, we were able to make a successful reunification. It is that simple. We can fix this.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that with the shortage of foster placements, it is all the more difficult to place foster youth with special needs in homes that are prepared to meet their needs. One such example of special needs is sibling groups. It is certainly a tragedy that upon enduring the trauma of being brought into the foster care system, children often also face the trauma for being indefinitely separated from their known biological siblings. Another example is that foster youth who are part of the LGBTQ+ community need special considerations to secure a safe and accepting placement while in foster care. This is all the more challenging as we are seeing vitriol toward this community nationwide. Youth also can have particular dietary needs either pertaining to health matters or cultural identity that should be catered to in a foster placement.

I am so glad that the House of Representatives is choosing to address all of these issues through the passage of the Recruiting Families Using Data Act. I am looking forward to continuing to work on behalf of foster youth with my colleagues in this constructive manner as we move forward.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Res. 969--the rule providing for consideration of the following:

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;

H.R. 6918--to prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from restricting funding for pregnancy centers; and

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, providing for debate on these highly politicized and dangerous bills, is yet another shameful effort to erode and dismantle the rights and protections of Americans across the country, and 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.

H. Res. 969 is a measure that must be opposed for the reasons stated below.

As it pertains to H.R. 6914, this bill requires higher education institutions that participate in federal education programs to disseminate information on the rights and resources afforded to prospective, full- and part-time students who are pregnant or may become pregnant to encourage them to carry their pregnancy to term.

These institutions would be required to share this information by email at the start of each academic year, in student handbooks. at each orientation for enrolled students, at student health and counseling centers, and on the school's website.

A list of anti-abortion ``findings'' in the bill insinuate that women who have an abortion are at risk of developing mental health issues, abusing drugs and alcohol, and becoming suicidal.

Amendments in committee offered to make it clear that schools are still allowed to disseminate information on access to sexual and reproductive health services and the rights, protections, and accommodation afforded to students under Title IX were voted down by Republicans on the Committee.

As it pertains to H.R. 6918, this bill prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from restricting funding to pregnancy centers, which are defined as any organization that ``supports protecting the life of the mother and unborn child'' and ``offers resources and services to mothers, fathers, and families.''

This legislation redirects critical funding to antiabortion facilities, which includes so-called ``crisis pregnancy centers,'' that operate under the guise of legitimate health care providers.

At a time when women and girls' reproductive health care is already under attack from Republicans across the country, my colleagues across the aisle want to go even further by taking money from legitimate providers and redistributing it to these centers whose staff are not required to have any medical credentials.

Additionally, it must be noted that these harmful bills are futile attempts that will be vetoed by this Administration.

As we know, the Administration strongly opposes H.R. 6914 and H.R. 6918.

As highlighted in the White House Statement of Administrative Policy (SAP), the Administration clearly stated its opposition to H.R. 6914 in its current form.

Existing federal civil rights laws have long prohibited discrimination against students on the basis of pregnancy and related conditions, and institutions of higher education are already required to provide reasonable modifications to pregnant students--from modified class schedules to medical leave.

The Administration stated that it will continue taking action to ensure that students know their rights under federal law and have access to the comprehensive, evidence-based information and resources they need to make informed decisions about their health care.

And as highlighted by the White House in its SAP to H.R. 6918, contrary to the purported purpose of this bill, it would divert federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds from effective supports for pregnant and parenting women and families.

Indeed, the bill seeks to prevent the Department of Health and Human Services from even considering commonsense program integrity measures that ensure that the use of federal TANF funds is consistent with federal law and the long-standing purposes set by Congress.

Members of Congress from both parties have recognized the importance of ensuring that federal TANF funds serve their intended purposes, and the Department's proposal would merely ensure that federal TANF funds are used consistent with the statutory requirements.

I stand with the Administration in stating that we remain committed to supporting the economic security, health, and well-being of women and families across the country, and I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to make this commitment as well.

As it pertains to H. Res. 957, 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 villainizes 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, H. Res. 969, the resolution providing for debate on these above stated bills (H.R. 69l4, H.R. 69l8, and H. Res. 957), is a pitiful attempt to continue the politicization of our government's ability to function and to dismantle rights and protections currently in place for the Americans across the country.

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.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Scanlon is as follows: An amendment to H. Res. 969 offered by Ms. Scanlon of Pennsylvania

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 12) to protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide abortion services. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 12.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source