Jason Smith

Mr. SMITH of Missouri

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. 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. SMITH of Missouri. 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. SMITH of Missouri. 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. SMITH of Missouri

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. 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. 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.

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

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. 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.