Key Vote: “YES” on Disapproval of the HHS Rule requiring Title X funds to go to Planned Parenthood

This week the House of Representatives is expected to vote on H.J.Res. 43, sponsored by Rep. Diane Black (R-TN), a disapproval resolution of the final rule submitted by Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) relating to compliance with Title X requirements by project recipients in selecting sub-recipients. Title X of the Public Health Service Act provides federal funds to states for family planning grants.  Once states receive the funds, they have the ability to prioritize sub-recipients, directing funds to organizations like community health centers and family health clinics. While federal law prohibits government funding for abortion, it does allows certain public dollars, like the Title X grants, to support abortion providers if the funds are directed to non-abortion related health services.  Under this exception, Planned Parenthood has been eligible to receive Title X funds, per the states’ discretion.

However, after the Center for Medical Progress released videos suggesting that Planned Parenthood Federation of America affiliates are harvesting and selling the body parts of aborted unborn children, many states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, took steps to ensure that Title X funds were flowing to real health care clinics – – and not the abortion industry.  But, as Melanie Israel at The Heritage Foundation explains in her article Obama’s Last Gift to Planned Parenthood, the Obama Administration’s HHS stepped in to protect Planned Parenthood’s federal funding stream:

“President Barack Obama has given Planned Parenthood a parting gift in the final weeks of his administration….the Department of Health and Human Services proposed a rule that would prohibit states from blocking Planned Parenthood from receiving Title X family planning services grant money for reasons “unrelated” to its ability to provide family planning services….The rule was proposed in response to several states’ attempt to defund Planned Parenthood after the nation’s largest abortion provider was featured in a series of undercover videos released by the Center for Medical Progress last year.”

Despite this parting gift, Israel goes on to explain that the new Congress, and President Trump, have a unique opportunity to overturn this rule by using the Congressional Review Act:

“According to the Congressional Review Act, Congress and a new president can overturn rules issued in the waning days of a previous administration…The Congressional Research Service has estimated that anything submitted to Congress after the end of May 2016 can be undone in this manner, meaning there are many rules and regulations that the incoming Congress could and should vote to rescind….Incoming members should put Planned Parenthood’s parting gift on the list of items to address using the Congressional Review Act when Congress returns in the new year.”

Overturning this rule is the appropriate step for Congress to take, to both protect life and reassert that the states have Tenth Amendment rights to allocate Title X family planning grants in such a manner as to prioritize community health clinics and true family planning over the industrial abortion industry represented by Planned Parenthood.  The HHS rule is a classic example of excessive federal rulemaking and executive overreach for partisan political gain, making it a perfect target for nullification under the CRA.

Heritage Action supports H.J.Res. 43 and will include it as a key vote on our legislative scorecard.

Related:
Obama’s Last Gift to Planned Parenthood
Pro-Life Groups Fight Obama Administration’s ‘Parting Gift’ to Planned Parenthood

 

“YES” on Disapproving the Stream Protection Rule (H.J.Res. 38)

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives will vote on H.J.Res. 38, a resolution disapproving of the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining (OSM) known as the Stream Protection Rule (SPR).  Offered by Representatives Bill Johnson (R-OH), Evan Jenkins (R-WV) and David McKinley (R-WV), this resolution would ensure that final SPR has no force or effect, and that OSM cannot issue a rule that is substantially the same without subsequent authorization from Congress.

While initially proposed in 2008, the rule wasn’t finalized until December 19, 2016.  During the intervening time, The Heritage Foundation wrote extensively about the profoundly negative impact this rule would have on the coal mining industry. In his paper The Assault on Coal and American Consumers, Heritage Foundation scholar Nick Loris writes:

“According to the OSM’s own projections, the proposed rule could eliminate 10,749 jobs in Appalachia. The new rule would impose additional permitting and reporting requirements and restrict various mining activities. The rewritten rule also has several serious problems. It only vaguely defines permit requirements, monitoring, and stream classifications, which it applies to both surface and underground mining.It removes flexibility in how companies reclaim mine sites, for instance by requiring reforestation even though wildlife organizations are working with the coal industry to provide grassland habitats for a wide range of species. Furthermore, it ignores regional differences and the efficient state regulatory work that manages those differences.”

Furthermore, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT), Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said that:

“This rule is the perfect candidate for congressional repeal. It is an abuse of executive power and the unelected bureaucracy expurgated states from the rule-writing process before jamming it through in the eleventh hour. The sheer economic impact of this rewrite of over 400 regulations is devastating for coal communities and, if allowed to proceed, an utter disaster for existing regulatory processes.”

Under a law known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA), Congress has the power to review regulations issued by Executive Branch agencies, such as the OSM, and even revoke the regulations through a resolution of disapproval. Once the disapproval resolution is passed by both the House and Senate, and signed by the President, the regulation has no more effect and cannot be brought back by any future administration absent specific authorization by Congress.

Additionally, passage of CRAs in the Senate only requires a simple majority vote and is therefore not subject to the filibuster. This makes the CRA a perfect tool for overturning many of former President Obama’s burdensome regulations. As Daren Bakst and James L. Gattuso from The Heritage Foundation have written:

“Both Congress and the President will have an opportunity in 2017 to roll back costly new rules that have been and are continuing to be imposed on the American people by the outgoing Administration. One powerful tool they can use to accomplish this task is the Congressional Review Act. This long-neglected tool can provide Congress with the power to swiftly remove months of Obama Administration rules from the books and to help ensure that they do not come back. Congress should not hesitate to use the CRA extensively.”

Using the CRA to nullify the job-killing Stream Protection Rule is a good first step towards the extensive use that Congressional Republicans should make of this legislative tool — used successfully just one time since its creation in 1996 — to cancel excessive regulations.

Heritage Action supports H.J.Res. 38 and will include it as a key vote on our legislative scorecard.

Related:

WSJ: A GOP Regulatory Game Changer
The Assault on Coal and American Consumers
2017 House Interior and Environment Bill Makes Policy Strides, Still Spends Too Much
Stars Align for the Congressional Review Act

 

“YES” on No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion (H.R. 7)

This week the House will vote on the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017 (H.R. 7). Sponsored by Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ), the bill would establish a permanent, government-wide prohibition on federal taxpayer funding of abortion and health benefits plans that include coverage of abortion, as well as prevent federal tax dollars from being entangled in abortion coverage under Obamacare.

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act is a good pro-life, pro-taxpayer bill that has earned Heritage Action’s support in the past. Regarding H.R. 7, The Heritage Foundation notes Congress failed to apply longstanding protections against federal funding of abortion or abortion coverage to the totality of Obamacare, potentially allowing large taxpayer subsidies to flow to health plans that cover elective abortion. They explain, “taxpayers will now foot the bill for federal subsidies for the purchase of health plans on the exchanges… and some of those plans could cover elective abortion.”

“YES” on Obamacare Repeal Budget Resolution (S. CON. RES. 3)

On Friday, the House will consider a concurrent resolution (S. CON. RES. 3). While the resolution will technically set the congressional budget for the United States Government for the remaining eight months of fiscal year 2017, its only functional purpose will be to produce reconciliation instructions that unlock fast track authority that Congress can then use to repeal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Separately, there is an expectation that the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution will reflect the longstanding conservative values embedded in previous GOP budgets. But to be absolutely clear, adopting S. CON. RES 3 is the only way to expedite the repeal of Obamacare.

In November, the Mercatus Center’s Brian Blase and The Heritage Foundation’s Paul Winfree, who was recently appointed Director of Budget Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council for The White House, laid out a “roadmap” on how to repeal Obamacare. The first step is to adopt the unpassed FY 17 budget that “include[s] instructions to the relevant committees in Congress” to repeal Obamacare. “This will set up the ability for Congress to pass a reconciliation bill repealing all the budgetary components of the ACA immediately after Trump is sworn into office,” Blase and Winfree continued.

“YES” on the REINS Act (H.R. 26)

This week, the House will vote on the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017 (H.R.  26).  The bill, introduced by Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) 79%, would increase accountability for and transparency in the federal regulatory process by requiring Congress to approve all new major regulations.

The Heritage Foundation explains lawmakers should be held accountable for the regulatory policies of the federal government; specifically, Congress should be explicitly responsible for major federal regulations.  The REINS Act would restore a level of accountability to the legislative process by preventing Congress from simply passing legislation that delegates significant discretion to the executive (i.e., Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, etc.) and then denying further responsibility.